Moore v. Lamarque, et al
Filing
131
ORDER denying 130 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/15/09. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
DAD:4 moor7.110.130
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS EUGENE MOORE, Petitioner, vs. ROBERT HOREL, Warden, Respondent. / Petitioner has again requested the appointment of counsel. As petitioner has been previously advised, 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). In addition, 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, 2009, request for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 130) is denied without prejudice. DATED: September 15, 2009. ORDER No. CIV S-02-0007 JAM DAD P
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
