From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singh v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 20, 2010
No. CIV S-09-1453 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-1453 GEB GGH P.

July 20, 2010


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 July 13, 2010 motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 22) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Singh v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 20, 2010
No. CIV S-09-1453 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2010)
Case details for

Singh v. Martel

Case Details

Full title:ASHMINDAR JEET SINGH, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 20, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-09-1453 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2010)