From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Powell v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 6, 2008
No. CIV S-05-1786 GEB KJM P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-1786 GEB KJM P.

October 6, 2008


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.

Petitioner has also requested leave to file an oversized traverse. His eighty-eight page traverse was filed on September 15, 2008 and will be considered by the court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (docket no. 33) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; and

2. Petitioner's request to file an oversized brief (docket no. 34) is granted; the court accepts the traverse filed September 15, 2008.


Summaries of

Powell v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 6, 2008
No. CIV S-05-1786 GEB KJM P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008)
Case details for

Powell v. Runnels

Case Details

Full title:TYRONE POWELL, Petitioner, v. DAVID RUNNELS, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 6, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-05-1786 GEB KJM P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008)