From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HALL v. FINN

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 1, 2008
No. CIV S-08-0824 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-0824 FCD GGH P.

May 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 April 17, 2008 motion for appointment of counsel (Docket #3) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

HALL v. FINN

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 1, 2008
No. CIV S-08-0824 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2008)
Case details for

HALL v. FINN

Case Details

Full title:SHANNON R. HALL, Petitioner, v. CLAUDE E. FINN, Warden, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 1, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-08-0824 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2008)