From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gray v. Figueroa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 19, 2012
No. CIV S-11-2974 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-2974 EFB P

04-19-2012

ROBERT MICHAEL GRAY, Petitioner, v. FRED FIGUEROA, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has requested that the court appoint counsel. Dckt. No. 16. 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). The court may appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings "if the interests of justice so require." See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that petitioner's April 13, 2012 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.

____________________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Gray v. Figueroa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 19, 2012
No. CIV S-11-2974 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012)
Case details for

Gray v. Figueroa

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT MICHAEL GRAY, Petitioner, v. FRED FIGUEROA, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 19, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-11-2974 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012)