From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Montgomery

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 11, 2015
2:14-cv-2468 CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 11, 2015)

Opinion


RAYSHAWN DONTAY SMITH, Petitioner, v. W. L. MONTGOMERY, et al., Respondents. No. 2:14-cv-2468 CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. May 11, 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 May 4, 2015 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied.


Summaries of

Smith v. Montgomery

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 11, 2015
2:14-cv-2468 CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 11, 2015)
Case details for

Smith v. Montgomery

Case Details

Full title:RAYSHAWN DONTAY SMITH, Petitioner, v. W. L. MONTGOMERY, et al.…

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

Date published: May 11, 2015

Citations

2:14-cv-2468 CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 11, 2015)