Love v. Knipp

Full title: DANTE L. LOVE, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Respondent.

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

Date published: Jan 26, 2015

2:14-cv-2817 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015)

Opinion

DANTE L. LOVE, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Respondent. No. 2:14-cv-2817 JAM CKD P United States District Court, Eastern District of California January 26, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner has 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 (ECF No. 18) is denied.