O'Neill v. The State of California

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/9/2017 DENYING 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice. (York, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NEAL O’NEILL, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-2094 MCE AC HC Petitioner, v. ORDER THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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 At this time, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 22 appointment of counsel. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 counsel (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice, subject to a renewal of the motion at a later 25 stage in the proceedings. 26 DATED: November 9, 2017 27 28

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?