(HC) Hampton v. Samuel
This text of (HC) Hampton v. Samuel ((HC) Hampton v. Samuel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] GARY G. HAMPTON, JR., No. 2:25-cv-1126 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 Vv. ORDER 14 DANNY SAMUEL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 18 || right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 19 | (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 20 | of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 21 | In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 22 || appointment of counsel at the present time. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 || counsel (ECF No. 10) is denied. 25 | Dated: June 24, 2025 □□ I / dip Ze 26 CAROLYN K DELANEY 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 I/hhhamp1126.110
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(HC) Hampton v. Samuel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-hampton-v-samuel-caed-2025.