From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Racimo v. Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 2, 2011
No. CIV-S-10-3486 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV-S-10-3486 JAM CKD P

09-02-2011

CALIXTO CADA RACIMO, Petitioner, v. RICK HILL, 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 motion for appointmen of counsel (Docket No. 23) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

CAROLIN K. DELANEI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Racimo v. Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 2, 2011
No. CIV-S-10-3486 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Racimo v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:CALIXTO CADA RACIMO, Petitioner, v. RICK HILL, Respondent.

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

Date published: Sep 2, 2011

Citations

No. CIV-S-10-3486 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2011)