From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barocio v. Horel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 4, 2008
No. CIV S-06-2678 ALA HC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-2678 ALA HC.

February 4, 2008


ORDER


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 January 25, 2008 application for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Barocio v. Horel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 4, 2008
No. CIV S-06-2678 ALA HC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2008)
Case details for

Barocio v. Horel

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL ANGEL BAROCIO, Petitioner, v. ROBERT A. HOREL, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 4, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-06-2678 ALA HC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2008)