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.

Charles Edward Lee v. M. Kramer

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


December 14, 2010

CHARLES EDWARD LEE, PETITIONER,
v.
M. KRAMER, 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 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, findings and recommendations are awaiting review by the District Judge. It appears that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, petitioner's November 30, 2010 request for appointment of counsel is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101214

© 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.