From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Ahlin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 4, 2012
1:12-cv-01163-AWI-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2012)

Opinion

1:12-cv-01163-AWI-SKO (HC)

09-04-2012

VASHON TYRONE JACKSON, Petitioner, v. PAM AHLIN, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


(DOCUMENT #9)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Although Petitioner argues that his case is complex, Petitioner's petition has not yet been screened, and it does not yet appear that Petitioner's case is such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Jackson v. Ahlin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 4, 2012
1:12-cv-01163-AWI-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2012)
Case details for

Jackson v. Ahlin

Case Details

Full title:VASHON TYRONE JACKSON, Petitioner, v. PAM AHLIN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 4, 2012

Citations

1:12-cv-01163-AWI-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2012)