From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whisenant v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 1, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0697 JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-0697 JFM (HC).

April 1, 2011


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 March 22, 2011 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: March 31, 2011.


Summaries of

Whisenant v. Swarthout

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 1, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0697 JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Whisenant v. Swarthout

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER WHISENANT, Petitioner, v. G. SWARTHOUT, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 1, 2011

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-0697 JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011)