From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 5, 2011
No. CIV-S-11-0180 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV-S-11-0180 CKD P

09-05-2011

JOHNNY C. THOMAS, 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 motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 27) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Thomas v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 5, 2011
No. CIV-S-11-0180 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2011)
Case details for

Thomas v. Swarthout

Case Details

Full title:JOHNNY C. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent.

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

Date published: Sep 5, 2011

Citations

No. CIV-S-11-0180 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2011)