From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. Kraker

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 3, 2006
No. CIV S-05-1699 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2006)

Summary

In Clark v. Kraker, 51 Minn. 444, 448 53 N.W. 706, 708 (1892), the waiver was implied from the mortgagor's failure to object to the sale in gross.

Summary of this case from In re Kjeldahl

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-1699 MCE KJM P.

August 3, 2006


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 July 25, 2006 request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Clark v. Kraker

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 3, 2006
No. CIV S-05-1699 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2006)

In Clark v. Kraker, 51 Minn. 444, 448 53 N.W. 706, 708 (1892), the waiver was implied from the mortgagor's failure to object to the sale in gross.

Summary of this case from In re Kjeldahl
Case details for

Clark v. Kraker

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL CLARK, Petitioner, v. M. KRAMER, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Aug 3, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-05-1699 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2006)

Citing Cases

Mulroy v. Sioux Falls Tr. Sav. Bank

Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn. 193, 41 N.W. 1031; Miller v. McCarty, 47 Minn. 321, 50 N.W. 235, 28 Am. St. 375;…

Morey v. City of Duluth

Root v. King, 91 Mich. 488; Dunn v. Herbs, 56 Hun, 457. Strict foreclosure is an unjust and an inappropriate…