From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dearman v. Kaplan

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 11, 2022
2:21-cv-2412 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-2412 TLN CKD P

10-11-2022

RYAN ALAN DEARMAN, Petitioner, v. JULIE KAPLAN, Respondent.


ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY 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 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 motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 34) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Dearman v. Kaplan

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 11, 2022
2:21-cv-2412 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)
Case details for

Dearman v. Kaplan

Case Details

Full title:RYAN ALAN DEARMAN, Petitioner, v. JULIE KAPLAN, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 11, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-2412 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)