Tucker v. Warden
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/6/2019 DENYING without prejudice 26 Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel, to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GREGORY ALLEN TUCKER,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:18-cv-0035 TLN KJN P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
WARDEN, SACRAMENTO STATE
PRISON,
Respondent.
16
17
18
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute
19
right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460
20
(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage
21
of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.
22
In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the
23
appointment of counsel at the present time.
24
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of
25
counsel (ECF 26) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the
26
proceedings.
27
Dated: February 6, 2019
28
/tuck0035.110
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?