From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez v. Duffy

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 12, 2015
2:14-cv-1641 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)

Opinion


ADAM RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. BRIAN DUFFY, Warden, Respondents. No. 2:14-cv-1641 KJN P United States District Court, E.D. California. March 12, 2015

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         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 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Ramirez v. Duffy

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 12, 2015
2:14-cv-1641 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)
Case details for

Ramirez v. Duffy

Case Details

Full title:ADAM RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. BRIAN DUFFY, Warden, Respondents.

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2015

Citations

2:14-cv-1641 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)