Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00006-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl Wofford
Respondent
Christopher Wright
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 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CARL WOFFORD, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0006 AC P 

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. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 

proceedings. 

DATED: August 10, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00006-GEB-AC Document 10 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 1