Grissom v. Knowles

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/7/2010 DENYING w/out prejudce, petitioner's 39 request for the appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

(HC) Grissom v. Knowles

Doc. 40

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 //// //// //// //// vs. MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent. / 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 July 2, 2010 request for ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEVERETT GRISSOM, Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-0040 JAM KJN P

Dockets.Justia.com

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

appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. (Dkt. No. 39.) DATED: July 7, 2010

_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
gris0040.110b