From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gurnsey v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2008
No. CIV S-07-1900 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-1900 MCE KJM P.

February 1, 2008


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 January 22, 2008 motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 11) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Gurnsey v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2008
No. CIV S-07-1900 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2008)
Case details for

Gurnsey v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH LEE GURNSEY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-07-1900 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2008)