Ramirez-Salgado v. Warden, Mule Creek State Prison

Full title: JOSE RAMIREZ-SALGADO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, MULE CREEK STATE PRISON…

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

Date published: Sep 1, 2015

2:15-cv-1037 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2015)

Opinion

JOSE RAMIREZ-SALGADO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, Respondents. No. 2:15-cv-1037 KJM CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 1, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, 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 August 19, 2015 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11) is denied.