From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hundal v. Ochoa

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 20, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-2345 JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-2345 JFM (HC).

September 20, 2011


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 September 6, 2011 request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: September 19, 2011.


Summaries of

Hundal v. Ochoa

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 20, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-2345 JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2011)
Case details for

Hundal v. Ochoa

Case Details

Full title:KANWALJIT SINGH HUNDAL, Petitioner, v. J. TIM OCHOA, Warden, et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 20, 2011

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-2345 JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2011)