From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Venegas v. Yates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 3, 2012
1:11-cv-1652-LJO-BAM- (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012)

Opinion

1:11-cv-1652-LJO-BAM- (HC) DOCUMENT # 18

01-03-2012

NATALIO OROZCO VENEGAS, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. YATES, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Barbara A. McAuliffe

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Venegas v. Yates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 3, 2012
1:11-cv-1652-LJO-BAM- (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Venegas v. Yates

Case Details

Full title:NATALIO OROZCO VENEGAS, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. YATES, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 3, 2012

Citations

1:11-cv-1652-LJO-BAM- (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012)