From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jacobs v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 23, 2008
No. CIV S-06-1363-MCE-GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-1363-MCE-GGH P.

October 23, 2008


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 June 13, 2008 request for appointment of counsel (Docket #23) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Jacobs v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 23, 2008
No. CIV S-06-1363-MCE-GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2008)
Case details for

Jacobs v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR JACOBS, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CAREY, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 23, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-06-1363-MCE-GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2008)