From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swanson v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 29, 2008
No. CIV S-05-2206 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-2206 MCE KJM P.

February 29, 2008


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 motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 24) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Swanson v. Carey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 29, 2008
No. CIV S-05-2206 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2008)
Case details for

Swanson v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL J. SWANSON, Petitioner, v. TOM CAREY, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 29, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-05-2206 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2008)