From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hanks v. Sexton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 8, 2018
No. 1:18-CV-00202-LJO-SKO HC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2018)

Opinion

No. 1:18-CV-00202-LJO-SKO HC

08-08-2018

JONATHAN HANKS, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL SEXTON, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 2)

Petitioner Jonathan Hanks proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for appointment of counsel.

In federal habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8 Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner contends that the Court should appoint counsel based on Petitioner's lack of knowledge of the law. Petitioner has competently submitted his petition, and alleges no basis by which the Court may appoint counsel on his behalf. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 8 , 2018

/s/ Sheila K . Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Hanks v. Sexton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 8, 2018
No. 1:18-CV-00202-LJO-SKO HC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2018)
Case details for

Hanks v. Sexton

Case Details

Full title:JONATHAN HANKS, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL SEXTON, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 8, 2018

Citations

No. 1:18-CV-00202-LJO-SKO HC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2018)