From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adams v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 12, 2011
1:10-cv-01290 AWI SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2011)

Opinion

1:10-cv-01290 AWI SKO (HC) DOCUMENT #28

09-12-2011

MARLON VINCENT ADAMS, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

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, 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.

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Adams v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 12, 2011
1:10-cv-01290 AWI SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2011)
Case details for

Adams v. Swarthout

Case Details

Full title:MARLON VINCENT ADAMS, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 12, 2011

Citations

1:10-cv-01290 AWI SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2011)