Brownlee v. Feilken
ORDER denying 63 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/10/10. (Plummer, M)
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 /kly/brow0925.110(6) vs. TOM FEILKEN, 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 request for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 63) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. DATED: December 10, 2010. ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRENCE BROWNLEE, Petitioner, No. CIV-S-10-0925 LKK KJM 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?