From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tunstall v. Schwartz

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 21, 2006
No. CIV S-04-2658 DFL JFM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-04-2658 DFL JFM P.

February 21, 2006


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 January 13, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Tunstall v. Schwartz

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 21, 2006
No. CIV S-04-2658 DFL JFM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006)
Case details for

Tunstall v. Schwartz

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT TUNSTALL, Petitioner, v. TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 21, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-04-2658 DFL JFM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006)