From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gentry v. Grounds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 1, 2013
No. 2:13-cv-0142 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:13-cv-0142 KJN P

02-01-2013

JERRY WAYNE GENTRY, Petitioner, v. RANDY GROUNDS, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 2) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

___________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Gentry v. Grounds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 1, 2013
No. 2:13-cv-0142 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013)
Case details for

Gentry v. Grounds

Case Details

Full title:JERRY WAYNE GENTRY, Petitioner, v. RANDY GROUNDS, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 1, 2013

Citations

No. 2:13-cv-0142 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013)