From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cordero v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 11, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1899 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-1899 GEB DAD P

08-11-2011

RICHARD CORDERO, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL D. McDONALD, Respondent.


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 May 16, 2011 request for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 25) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Cordero v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 11, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1899 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011)
Case details for

Cordero v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD CORDERO, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL D. McDONALD, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 11, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-1899 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011)