Wright v. Wofford

Full title: CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. CARL WOFFORD, Respondent.

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

Date published: Aug 10, 2015

2:15-cv-0006 AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015)

Opinion

CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. CARL WOFFORD, Respondent. No. 2:15-cv-0006 AC P United States District Court, E.D. California. August 10, 2015

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, 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 motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.