From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sumrall v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 20, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-1253 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-1253 KJN P

09-20-2011

JONATHAN L. SUMRALL, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent.


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.

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Sumrall v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 20, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-1253 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2011)
Case details for

Sumrall v. Swarthout

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Sep 20, 2011

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-1253 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2011)