From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moten v. Woodford

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 17, 2006
No. 1:05-cv-01635-OWW-TAG HC, (Doc. 4) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2006)

Opinion

No. 1:05-cv-01635-OWW-TAG HC, (Doc. 4).

February 17, 2006


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


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.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958);Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 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), Rules Governing Section 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 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 4), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Moten v. Woodford

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 17, 2006
No. 1:05-cv-01635-OWW-TAG HC, (Doc. 4) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2006)
Case details for

Moten v. Woodford

Case Details

Full title:JESSE E. MOTEN, Petitioner, v. JEANNE WOODFORD, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 17, 2006

Citations

No. 1:05-cv-01635-OWW-TAG HC, (Doc. 4) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2006)