From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bartholomew v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 14, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0073 WBS GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-0073 WBS GGH P.

February 14, 2011


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 February 4, 2011, request for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 18) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: February 14, 2011


Summaries of

Bartholomew v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 14, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0073 WBS GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2011)
Case details for

Bartholomew v. Swarthout

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN BARTHOLOMEW, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 14, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-0073 WBS GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2011)