From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grissom v. Knowles

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 7, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-0040 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-0040 JAM KJN P.

July 7, 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 2, 2010 request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. (Dkt. No. 39.)


Summaries of

Grissom v. Knowles

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 7, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-0040 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2010)
Case details for

Grissom v. Knowles

Case Details

Full title:LEVERETT GRISSOM, Petitioner, v. MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 7, 2010

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-0040 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2010)