From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foster v. Brazelton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 18, 2013
Case No. 1:13-cv-01635-SAB (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 1:13-cv-01635-SAB (HC)

2013-10-18

BRUCE WAYNE FOSTER, Petitioner, v. PAUL BRAZELTON, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


[ECF NO. 3]

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Foster v. Brazelton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 18, 2013
Case No. 1:13-cv-01635-SAB (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2013)
Case details for

Foster v. Brazelton

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE WAYNE FOSTER, Petitioner, v. PAUL BRAZELTON, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 18, 2013

Citations

Case No. 1:13-cv-01635-SAB (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2013)