From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hurst v. Campbell

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 21, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0858 MCE CMK P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-0858 MCE CMK P.

September 21, 2006


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 August 29, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Hurst v. Campbell

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 21, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0858 MCE CMK P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2006)
Case details for

Hurst v. Campbell

Case Details

Full title:RONALD HURST, Petitioner, v. ROSANNE CAMPBELL, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Sep 21, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-06-0858 MCE CMK P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2006)