From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Otton v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 4, 2006
No. CIV S-05-2021 MCE PAN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-2021 MCE PAN P.

August 4, 2006


ORDER


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 March 31, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.


Summaries of

Otton v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 4, 2006
No. CIV S-05-2021 MCE PAN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2006)
Case details for

Otton v. Schwarzenegger

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW OTTON, JR., Petitioner, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 4, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-05-2021 MCE PAN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2006)