From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawthorne v. Hartley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 12, 2011
1:11-cv-01618 SMS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)

Opinion

1:11-cv-01618 SMS (HC)

10-12-2011

RALPH KELLY HAWTHORNE, JR., Petitioner, v. JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


(DOCUMENT #4)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sandra M. Snyder

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Hawthorne v. Hartley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 12, 2011
1:11-cv-01618 SMS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)
Case details for

Hawthorne v. Hartley

Case Details

Full title:RALPH KELLY HAWTHORNE, JR., Petitioner, v. JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 12, 2011

Citations

1:11-cv-01618 SMS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)