From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kishor v. Matteson

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 2, 2021
2:21-cv-1359 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-1359 JAM DB P

09-02-2021

CHANDRA KISHOR, Petitioner, v. GIGI MATTESON, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner is a state inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims he should be released from custody because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Presently before the court is petitioner's second motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 14.)

In support of his motion to appoint counsel petitioner states that he is incarcerated and unable to afford 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.

The undersigned has recommended that the petition be dismissed without leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.) Thus, 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 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Kishor v. Matteson

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 2, 2021
2:21-cv-1359 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Kishor v. Matteson

Case Details

Full title:CHANDRA KISHOR, Petitioner, v. GIGI MATTESON, Warden, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 2, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-1359 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)