From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brownlee v. Feilken

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 15, 2010
No. CIV-S-10-0925 LKK KJM P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV-S-10-0925 LKK KJM P.

July 15, 2010


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 motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 35) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Brownlee v. Feilken

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 15, 2010
No. CIV-S-10-0925 LKK KJM P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2010)
Case details for

Brownlee v. Feilken

Case Details

Full title:TERRENCE BROWNLEE, Petitioner, v. TOM FEILKEN, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 15, 2010

Citations

No. CIV-S-10-0925 LKK KJM P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2010)