From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burnight v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Mar 15, 2007
No. CIV S-06-2398 LKK KJM P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-2398 LKK KJM P.

March 15, 2007


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 March 1, 2007 application for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Burnight v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Mar 15, 2007
No. CIV S-06-2398 LKK KJM P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2007)
Case details for

Burnight v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:JON BURNIGHT, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CAREY, Warden, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2007

Citations

No. CIV S-06-2398 LKK KJM P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2007)