From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edwards v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 25, 2009
No. CIV S-08-2236 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2009)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-2236 MCE KJM P.

August 25, 2009


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 motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 20) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Edwards v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 25, 2009
No. CIV S-08-2236 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2009)
Case details for

Edwards v. Sisto

Case Details

Full title:KENNEDY EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. D.K. SISTO, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Aug 25, 2009

Citations

No. CIV S-08-2236 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2009)