Harris v. Gipson

Full title: MICHAEL JAY HARRIS, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Apr 23, 2015

2:13-cv-2604 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2015)

Opinion

MICHAEL JAY HARRIS, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent. No. 2:13-cv-2604 TLN CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. April 23, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner has renewed his request for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 46.) 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. Moreover, as the petition is fully briefed, the court will disregard any further requests for appointment of counsel. (See ECF Nos. 12, 31 & 41, denying previous requests to appoint counsel.)

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 46) is denied.