From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howell v. Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2013
No. 2:12-CV-1901-KJM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:12-CV-1901-KJM-CMK-P

05-01-2013

PRESTON ALONZO HOWELL, Petitioner, v. RICKY HILL, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel (Doc. 20). 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. For the reasons outlined in the court's March 13, 2013, findings and recommendations, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. Further requests for the appointment of counsel will not be considered.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 20) is denied.

_______________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Howell v. Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2013
No. 2:12-CV-1901-KJM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)
Case details for

Howell v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:PRESTON ALONZO HOWELL, Petitioner, v. RICKY HILL, Respondent.

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

Date published: May 1, 2013

Citations

No. 2:12-CV-1901-KJM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)