Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01978/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01978-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 In response to the latter request the Clerk of the Court sent petitioner a copy of the docket 1

sheet for this action.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND P. NELSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1978 FCD JFM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 21, 2008, petitioner filed an

application for appointment of counsel and a request for the status of this action. This petition 1

for writ of habeas corpus was denied and judgment was entered on November 9, 2007. On

November 21, 2007, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and on November 26, 2007, petitioner

filed an application for a certificate of appealability. On December 12, 2007, the district court

denied petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability, and petitioner’s appeal was

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01978-FCD-JFM Document 49 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 Court of Appeals Docket # 07-17306. 2

2

processed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where it is currently

pending.2

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, this court does

not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

time. Accordingly, petitioner’s February 21, 2008 application for appointment of counsel will be

denied without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, in the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 21, 2008 request for appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

DATED: March 6, 2008.

12/mp

nels1978.110

Case 2:03-cv-01978-FCD-JFM Document 49 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2