From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gibson v. Hartley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 29, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0555 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-0555 KJN P.

April 29, 2011


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 April 20, 2011 motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 11) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: April 28, 2011


Summaries of

Gibson v. Hartley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 29, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0555 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011)
Case details for

Gibson v. Hartley

Case Details

Full title:LARRY GIBSON, Petitioner, v. JAMES HARTLEY, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 29, 2011

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-0555 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011)