From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pate v. Martel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 19, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-1759 GEB JFM P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-1759 GEB JFM P

04-19-2013

JEFFREY A. PATE, Petitioner, v. M. MARTEL, Respondent.


ORDER

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 April 8, 2013, request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20) is denied without prejudice.

________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Pate v. Martel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 19, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-1759 GEB JFM P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2013)
Case details for

Pate v. Martel

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY A. PATE, Petitioner, v. M. MARTEL, Respondent.

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

Date published: Apr 19, 2013

Citations

No. 2:12-cv-1759 GEB JFM P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2013)