From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kincaide v. Dickinson

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 31, 2011
No. CIV S-10-2068 KJM DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 31, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-2068 KJM DAD P.

May 31, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. As the court previously advised petitioner, 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. § 3006 A 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 (Doc. No. 22) is denied.

DATED: May 26, 2011.


Summaries of

Kincaide v. Dickinson

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 31, 2011
No. CIV S-10-2068 KJM DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 31, 2011)
Case details for

Kincaide v. Dickinson

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE KINCAIDE, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: May 31, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-2068 KJM DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 31, 2011)