Mitchell v. Knipp

Full title: RONALD MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. W. KNIPP, Respondent.

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

Date published: Sep 24, 2012

2:12-cv-0780 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2012)

Opinion

RONALD MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. W. KNIPP, Respondent. No. 2:12-cv-0780 GEB DAD P. United States District Court, E.D. California. September 24, 2012.

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

         Petitioner has requested the appointment of 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. 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 September 17, 2012 request for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 20) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.