From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stewart v. Hense

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 13, 2011
1:11-cv-1525 JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)

Opinion

1:11-cv-1525 JLT (HC) Doc. 3

09-13-2011

CARLETHA A. STEWART, Petitioner, v. L. HENSE, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, citing his indigence as grounds therefore. (Doc. 3). 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. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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 require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Stewart v. Hense

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 13, 2011
1:11-cv-1525 JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)
Case details for

Stewart v. Hense

Case Details

Full title:CARLETHA A. STEWART, Petitioner, v. L. HENSE, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 13, 2011

Citations

1:11-cv-1525 JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)