Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01340-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelly Harrington
Respondent
Bee Vue
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

BEE VUE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-1340 JAM DAD P

vs.

KELLY HARRINGTON, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. As the court previously

advised petitioner, 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s March 4, 2010 motion for

appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 30) is denied.

DATED: March 9, 2010.

DAD:9:kly

vue1340.110(2)

Case 2:09-cv-01340-JAM-CHS Document 31 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 1