From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Artega v. Biter

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 17, 2013
2:11-cv-3181 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)

Opinion


PETER MANUEL ARTEGA, II, Petitioner, v. MARTIN BITER, Warden, Respondents. No. 2:11-cv-3181 GEB DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. December 17, 2013

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, 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 December 9, 2013 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 33) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Artega v. Biter

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 17, 2013
2:11-cv-3181 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)
Case details for

Artega v. Biter

Case Details

Full title:PETER MANUEL ARTEGA, II, Petitioner, v. MARTIN BITER, Warden, Respondents.

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

Date published: Dec 17, 2013

Citations

2:11-cv-3181 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)