From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Insixengmay v. Virga

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 17, 2013
2:13-cv-898-MCE-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)

Opinion


JAY INSIXENGMAY, Petitioner, v. T. VIRGA, Respondent. No. 2:13-cv-898-MCE-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. December 17, 2013

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, District Judge.

         Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has once again requested that the court appoint counsel. As petitioner has been previously informed, see ECF No. 10, 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). The court may appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings "if the interests of justice so require." See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings.

         Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 19) is denied without prejudice.


Summaries of

Insixengmay v. Virga

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 17, 2013
2:13-cv-898-MCE-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)
Case details for

Insixengmay v. Virga

Case Details

Full title:JAY INSIXENGMAY, Petitioner, v. T. VIRGA, Respondent.

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

Date published: Dec 17, 2013

Citations

2:13-cv-898-MCE-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)