From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bryant v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jan 25, 2008
No. CIV S 05-1132 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S 05-1132 FCD GGH P.

January 25, 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 December 27, 2007 request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Bryant v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jan 25, 2008
No. CIV S 05-1132 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2008)
Case details for

Bryant v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS J. BRYANT, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CAREY, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 25, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S 05-1132 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2008)