From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

FOSS v. MARTEL

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 20, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-3551 JAM JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-3551 JAM JFM (HC).

July 20, 2010


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 June 25, 2010 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

FOSS v. MARTEL

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 20, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-3551 JAM JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2010)
Case details for

FOSS v. MARTEL

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND CHRISTIAN FOSS, Petitioner, v. MIKE MARTEL, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 20, 2010

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-3551 JAM JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2010)