From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrade v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 6, 2012
No. CIV S-11-3055-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-3055-JAM-CMK-P

01-06-2012

NICKOLAS J. ANDRADE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, DVI, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel (Docs. 4 and 9). 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. Further requests for the appointment of counsel will not be considered.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Docs. 4 and 9) is denied.

____________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Andrade v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 6, 2012
No. CIV S-11-3055-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012)
Case details for

Andrade v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:NICKOLAS J. ANDRADE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, DVI, Respondent.

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

Date published: Jan 6, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-11-3055-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012)