From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

THAO v. SWARTHOUT

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 27, 2011
No. CIV S-09-3572 WBS DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-3572 WBS DAD P.

April 27, 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 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 26) is denied.

DATED: April 26, 2011.


Summaries of

THAO v. SWARTHOUT

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 27, 2011
No. CIV S-09-3572 WBS DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2011)
Case details for

THAO v. SWARTHOUT

Case Details

Full title:CHARLIE CHONG THAO, Petitioner, v. SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 27, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-09-3572 WBS DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2011)