From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howell v. Lamarque

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 17, 2006
No. CIV S-02-1376 GEB JFM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-02-1376 GEB JFM P.

February 17, 2006


ORDER


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 at the present time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's February 1, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Howell v. Lamarque

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 17, 2006
No. CIV S-02-1376 GEB JFM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2006)
Case details for

Howell v. Lamarque

Case Details

Full title:PRESTON ALONZO HOWELL, Petitioner, v. A.A. LAMARQUE, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 17, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-02-1376 GEB JFM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2006)