From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chisom v. Madera Cnty.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 17, 2021
1:21-cv-01368-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 17, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01368-SKO (HC)

09-17-2021

MICHAEL NARVELLE CHISOM, Petitioner, v. MADERA COUNTY, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. 2]

SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Chisom v. Madera Cnty.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 17, 2021
1:21-cv-01368-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 17, 2021)
Case details for

Chisom v. Madera Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL NARVELLE CHISOM, Petitioner, v. MADERA COUNTY, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 17, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-01368-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 17, 2021)