Ramirez-Salgado v. Mule Creek State Prison Warden et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/5/2015 DENYING without prejudice petitioner's 6 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSE RAMIREZ-SALGADO, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, v. ORDER MULE CREEK STATE PRISON WARDEN, et al., Respondents. 15 16 No. 2:15-cv-1037 KJM CKD P Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 17 right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 18 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 19 of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 20 In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 21 appointment of counsel at the present time. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 23 counsel (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 24 proceedings. 25 Dated: June 5, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 1/kly/ami1037.110

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?