From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Soto v. Biter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 8, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-2372 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-2372 EFB P

01-08-2013

JAIRO SOTO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN BITER, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, he has requested that the court appoint counsel. Dckt. No. 1. 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). The court may appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings "if the interests of justice so require." See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that petitioner's September 17, 2012 request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.

______________________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Soto v. Biter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 8, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-2372 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013)
Case details for

Soto v. Biter

Case Details

Full title:JAIRO SOTO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN BITER, Respondent.

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

Date published: Jan 8, 2013

Citations

No. 2:12-cv-2372 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013)