From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sumrall v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 21, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-1253 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-1253 KJN P.

September 21, 2011


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 September 9, 2011 motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 14) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: September 20, 2011


Summaries of

Sumrall v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 21, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-1253 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2011)
Case details for

Sumrall v. Swarthout

Case Details

Full title:JONATHAN L. SUMRALL, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 21, 2011

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-1253 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2011)