From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goodridge v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 23, 2010
No. CIV S-10-1714 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-1714 GGH P.

July 23, 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 July 6, 2010 motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 3) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Goodridge v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 23, 2010
No. CIV S-10-1714 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2010)
Case details for

Goodridge v. Martel

Case Details

Full title:PETER GOODRIDGE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 23, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-10-1714 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2010)