Berry v. Jacquez

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 8/10/2010 DENYING, w/out prejudice, ptnr's 21 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
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. FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, 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. ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONALD JOSEPH BERRY, Petitioner, No. 2:10-cv-0305 WBS JFM (HC) 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 /md014;berr0305.110 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's August 4, 2010 request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. DATED: August 10, 2010.

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?