From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pouncil v. Knipp

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 16, 2012
No. CIV S-12-0042 WBS GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-12-0042 WBS GGH P

02-16-2012

MADERO POUNCIL, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden, Respondent.


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 February 8, 2012 motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 10) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Pouncil v. Knipp

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 16, 2012
No. CIV S-12-0042 WBS GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2012)
Case details for

Pouncil v. Knipp

Case Details

Full title:MADERO POUNCIL, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 16, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-12-0042 WBS GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2012)