From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kelsaw v. Horel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 19, 2010
No. CIV S-08-1612 MCE CHS P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-1612 MCE CHS P.

November 19, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus. By motion filed on November 1, 2010, petitioner again requests the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). Rather, the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case is warranted "if the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(b); see also Rule 8(c), Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In this case, findings and recommendations have been entered which are awaiting review by the District Judge. It does not appear that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner's November 1, 2010 motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2010


Summaries of

Kelsaw v. Horel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 19, 2010
No. CIV S-08-1612 MCE CHS P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010)
Case details for

Kelsaw v. Horel

Case Details

Full title:RUFUS HARTY KELSAW, IV, Petitioner, v. BOB HOREL, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 19, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-08-1612 MCE CHS P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010)