From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 7, 2011
No. CIV S-09-2999 MCE CHS P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-2999 MCE CHS P.

February 7, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas corpus 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 making this determination, the court evaluates the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, Petitioner has articulated his claims reasonably well and the issues presented are not complex. Therefore, the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: February 4, 2011


Summaries of

Young v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 7, 2011
No. CIV S-09-2999 MCE CHS P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)
Case details for

Young v. Sisto

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE EDWARD YOUNG, Petitioner, v. D.K SISTO, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-09-2999 MCE CHS P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)