From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Espinoza v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 4, 2011
1:10-cv-01521-LJO-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011)

Opinion

1:10-cv-01521-LJO-SKO (HC)

08-04-2011

CORNELIO VEDOLLA ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. MIKE MCDONALD, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


(DOCUMENT #26)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Espinoza v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 4, 2011
1:10-cv-01521-LJO-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011)
Case details for

Espinoza v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:CORNELIO VEDOLLA ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. MIKE MCDONALD, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 4, 2011

Citations

1:10-cv-01521-LJO-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011)