From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Cueva

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 5, 2021
2:20-cv-1443 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-1443 KJM AC P

08-05-2021

ANTHONY JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. DANIEL E. CUEVA, Respondent.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 25. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.”

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies prior to filing the petition in this case. ECF No. 12. The motion is fully briefed and there is nothing further for petitioner to do in this case at this time. Therefore, 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 motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 25, is DENIED without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Cueva

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 5, 2021
2:20-cv-1443 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021)
Case details for

Johnson v. Cueva

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. DANIEL E. CUEVA, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 5, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-1443 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021)