Henderson v. Adams

Full title: LANCE KERWIN HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. ADAMS, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 23, 2007

No. CIV S-06-2369 DFL CMK P (E.D. Cal. May. 23, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-2369 DFL CMK P.

May 23, 2007

ORDER

CRAIG KELLISON, Magistrate Judge

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.

Petitioner has also filed a second application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. That application, however, is duplicative of a prior application, which was granted. This application, therefore, will be denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's May 14, 2007 request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 24) is denied; and

2. Petitioner's December 6, 2006, application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9) is denied as unnecessary.