From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stith v. McComber

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 23, 2015
2:15-cv-0504 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015)

Opinion


THEODORE ERVIN STITH, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY McCOMBER, Respondent. No. 2:15-cv-0504 DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. March 23, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, 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 March 2, 2015 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Stith v. McComber

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 23, 2015
2:15-cv-0504 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Stith v. McComber

Case Details

Full title:THEODORE ERVIN STITH, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY McCOMBER, Respondent.

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

Date published: Mar 23, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-0504 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015)