From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oliver v. Knowles

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 23, 2006
No. 1:03-cv-5744-AWI-TAG-HC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2006)

Opinion

No. 1:03-cv-5744-AWI-TAG-HC.

February 23, 2006


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 23)


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. The Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 23), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Oliver v. Knowles

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 23, 2006
No. 1:03-cv-5744-AWI-TAG-HC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2006)
Case details for

Oliver v. Knowles

Case Details

Full title:JAMES LUCIUS OLIVER, Petitioner, v. MIKE E. KNOWLES, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 23, 2006

Citations

No. 1:03-cv-5744-AWI-TAG-HC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2006)