From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clemens v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 3, 2010
No. CIV S-08-2588 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-2588 EFB P.

February 3, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has requested that the court appoint 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). The court may appointment counsel at any stage of the proceedings "if the interests of justice so require." See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings.

On January 27, 2010, petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, apparently in support of his motion for appointment of counsel. That motion is denied as unnecessary.

Petitioner paid the filing fee in this action on July 15, 2008.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's January 27, 2010 motions for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice; and

2. Petitioner's January 27, 2010 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.


Summaries of

Clemens v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 3, 2010
No. CIV S-08-2588 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010)
Case details for

Clemens v. Sisto

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN ANTHONY CLEMENS, Petitioner, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 3, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-08-2588 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010)