From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCurry v. Allison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 2, 2022
1:22-cv-01398-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-cv-01398-SKO (HC)

11-02-2022

SCOTT ALLEN MCCURRY, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCUMENT #2)

SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.


Summaries of

McCurry v. Allison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 2, 2022
1:22-cv-01398-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2022)
Case details for

McCurry v. Allison

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT ALLEN MCCURRY, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 2, 2022

Citations

1:22-cv-01398-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2022)