Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morrison v. Carey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 28, 2010

CURTIS LEE MORRISON, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS CAREY, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a timely notice of appeal of this Court's January 14, 2010 order denying his application for writ of habeas corpus and requested that a certificate of appealability issue. Since petitioner is challenging the decision of the California Board of Prison Terms that he was not suitable for parole, a certificate of appealability is not required for this appeal to be processed. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2005).

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In this case, the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's January 26, 2010 request for appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice to its renewal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; in addition, the January 26, 2010 request that a certificate of appealability issue is denied as unnecessary.

20100128

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.