From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 24, 2012
2: 11-cv-2715 GEB CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2012)

Opinion

2: 11-cv-2715 GEB CKD P

07-24-2012

PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (See Dkt. No. 28.) 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 motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 28.) is DENIED.

_________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Johnson v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 24, 2012
2: 11-cv-2715 GEB CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2012)
Case details for

Johnson v. Swarthout

Case Details

Full title:PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 24, 2012

Citations

2: 11-cv-2715 GEB CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2012)