From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manago v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 3, 2011
1:11-cv-01172-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011)

Opinion

1:11-cv-01172-MJS (HC)

08-03-2011

STEWART MANAGO, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


(Doc. 6)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ____


Summaries of

Manago v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 3, 2011
1:11-cv-01172-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011)
Case details for

Manago v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:STEWART MANAGO, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 3, 2011

Citations

1:11-cv-01172-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011)