Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00020/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00020-3/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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD PAUL MARCHAND,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0020 DFL KJM P

vs.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al., 

Respondents. 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. 

Petitioner also has filed a notice, advising the court that his opposition to the

motion to dismiss would be untimely because of transportation problems. The opposition has

now been filed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s August 31, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

Case 2:05-cv-00020-DFL -KJM Document 22 Filed 10/04/06 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

2. Petitioner’s September 15, 2006 opposition to the motion to dismiss is deemed

timely. 

DATED: October 3, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/mp

 marc0020.110

Case 2:05-cv-00020-DFL -KJM Document 22 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2