From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. Virga

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 12, 2015
1:13 -cv-00175-LJO-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. May. 12, 2015)

Opinion

1:13 -cv-00175-LJO-JLT (HC)

05-12-2015

CURTIS LEE WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. TIM VIRGA, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 37)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, citing his inability to secure the services of a "jailhouse lawyer" as grounds therefore. 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, Title 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.

Dated: May 12 , 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Washington v. Virga

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 12, 2015
1:13 -cv-00175-LJO-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. May. 12, 2015)
Case details for

Washington v. Virga

Case Details

Full title:CURTIS LEE WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. TIM VIRGA, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 12, 2015

Citations

1:13 -cv-00175-LJO-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. May. 12, 2015)