From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hickman v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 23, 2006
No. CIV S-06-1734 LKK GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-1734 LKK GGH P.

August 23, 2006


ORDER


Petitioner has filed requests for 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, particularly in light of this court's pending recommendation that this action be dismissed for petitioner's failure to exhaust state court remedies.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's August 7, 2006, August 14, 2006, requests for appointment of counsel are denied without prejudice


Summaries of

Hickman v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 23, 2006
No. CIV S-06-1734 LKK GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2006)
Case details for

Hickman v. State

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE B. HICKMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 23, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-06-1734 LKK GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2006)