From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tate v. Knipp

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 8, 2013
1:13-cv-00025-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013)

Opinion

1:13-cv-00025-MJS (HC)

01-08-2013

LEROY TATE, JR., Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


(Doc. 3)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Tate v. Knipp

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 8, 2013
1:13-cv-00025-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013)
Case details for

Tate v. Knipp

Case Details

Full title:LEROY TATE, JR., Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 8, 2013

Citations

1:13-cv-00025-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013)