From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Kramer

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 15, 2010
No. CIV S-08-1710 MCE CHS P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-1710 MCE CHS P.

December 15, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner who proceeded pro se in this court with a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, has filed a motion requesting 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). 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 this case, findings and recommendations are awaiting review by the District Judge. It appears that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, petitioner's November 30, 2010 request for appointment of counsel is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2010


Summaries of

Lee v. Kramer

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 15, 2010
No. CIV S-08-1710 MCE CHS P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010)
Case details for

Lee v. Kramer

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES EDWARD LEE, Petitioner, v. M. KRAMER, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 15, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-08-1710 MCE CHS P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010)