Rhinehart v. Lackner

Full title: LAMONT LEE RHINEHART, Petitioner, v. HEIDI M. LACKNER, Respondent.

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

Date published: May 18, 2015

2:15-cv-0122 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 18, 2015)

Opinion

LAMONT LEE RHINEHART, Petitioner, v. HEIDI M. LACKNER, Respondent. No. 2:15-cv-0122 JAM CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. May 18, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, 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 motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.