From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henderson v. Martel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 11, 2012
No. CIV S-12-0043-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-12-0043-CMK-P

01-11-2012

TOMMY HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel (Doc. 2). 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 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 2) is denied without prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, after a response to the petition has been filed.

____________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Henderson v. Martel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 11, 2012
No. CIV S-12-0043-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012)
Case details for

Henderson v. Martel

Case Details

Full title:TOMMY HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 11, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-12-0043-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012)