From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wensel v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 17, 2008
No. CIV S-08-1066-JAM-GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-1066-JAM-GGH P.

October 17, 2008


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 September 11, 2008 request for appointment of counsel (Docket #13) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Wensel v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 17, 2008
No. CIV S-08-1066-JAM-GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2008)
Case details for

Wensel v. Martel

Case Details

Full title:SHAW RONALD WENSEL, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 17, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-08-1066-JAM-GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2008)