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.

Jimmy Lee Benson v. M. Biter

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


July 17, 2012

JIMMY LEE BENSON, PETITIONER,
v.
M. BITER, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 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 the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.

On June 21, 2012, petitioner filed a motion to appear in person at oral argument. If the undersigned determines that oral argument is warranted in this action, he will make arrangements for petitioner to appear. For this reason, petitioner's motion to appear at oral argument is denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's July 5, 2012 motion request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 30) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings;

2. Petitioner's motion to appear in person for oral argument (Dkt. No. 29) is denied.

20120717

© 1992-2012 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.