Scott v. People of the State of California
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/18/11 DENYING without prejudice 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
ANDRE R. SCOTT,
10
Petitioner,
11
No. CIV S-10-0824 DAD (TEMP) P
vs.
12
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
13
Respondent.
14
ORDER
/
15
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no
16
absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d
17
453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at
18
any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing
19
§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be
20
served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.
21
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s June 14, 2011, request
22
for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 20) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the
23
motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
24
DATED: June 18, 2011.
25
26
DAD:kly
scot0824.110
]]>
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?
