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.

Franklin v. Walker

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


April 13, 2010

TIMOTHY PRINCE FRANKLIN, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES WALKER, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner who proceeded pro se in this court with a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, has filed a second motion requesting 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. Judgment has already been entered and this action was terminated on February 2, 2010. Petitioner's appeal has already been processed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's February 12, 2010 request for appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice to its renewal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

20100413

© 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.