Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00283/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00283-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Respondent
Martha A. Watson Marrs
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

MARTHA A. WATSON MARRS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-0283 GGH P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

 

Respondent. 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, given the probation only sentence, 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 1, 2010 motion

for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 11) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the

motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: March 10, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mp; wats0283.110 

Case 2:10-cv-00283-JAM-GGH Document 12 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 1