Scott v. Sherman
Filing
25
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/3/2017 DENYING 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceeding. (Washington, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS CHARLES SCOTT,
12
13
No. 2:16-cv-1957 JAM KJN P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
14
STEWART SHERMAN, et al.
15
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute
18
right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460
19
(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage
20
of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.
21
In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the
22
appointment of counsel at the present time.
23
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of
24
counsel (ECF No. 23) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the
25
proceedings.
26
Dated: March 3, 2017
27
scot1957.110
28
1
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?