From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Gipson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 25, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-2855 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-2855 MCE KJN P

01-25-2013

THAE LEE, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, 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. On December 20, 2012, petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus was denied, and judgment was entered. Thus, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's January 14, 2013 request for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 30) is denied.

______________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Lee v. Gipson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 25, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-2855 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013)
Case details for

Lee v. Gipson

Case Details

Full title:THAE LEE, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent.

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

Date published: Jan 25, 2013

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-2855 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013)