From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Ducart

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 1, 2015
2:13-cv-2129 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2015)

Opinion


MATTHEW S. JONES, Petitioner, v. CLARK E. DUCART, Warden, Respondent. No. 2:13-cv-2129 DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. March 1, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         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 February 20, 2015 motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Jones v. Ducart

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 1, 2015
2:13-cv-2129 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2015)
Case details for

Jones v. Ducart

Case Details

Full title:MATTHEW S. JONES, Petitioner, v. CLARK E. DUCART, Warden, Respondent.

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

Date published: Mar 1, 2015

Citations

2:13-cv-2129 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2015)