From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Solis v. Harrison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 9, 2012
1:12-cv-01481 GSA HC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2012)

Opinion

1:12-cv-01481 GSA HC

10-09-2012

ARMANDO SOLIS, Plaintiff, v. C.M. HARRISON, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


(Doc. #9)

On September 28, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 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), Rules Governing Section 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 insofar as the petition was dismissed on October 1, 2012. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Solis v. Harrison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 9, 2012
1:12-cv-01481 GSA HC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2012)
Case details for

Solis v. Harrison

Case Details

Full title:ARMANDO SOLIS, Plaintiff, v. C.M. HARRISON, Defendants.

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

Date published: Oct 9, 2012

Citations

1:12-cv-01481 GSA HC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2012)