(HC) Khademi v. Santoro

E.D. California

(HC) Khademi v. Santoro

DecidedMay 28, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00902

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Khademi v. Santoro ((HC) Khademi v. Santoro) 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.

Bluebook

(HC) Khademi v. Santoro, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] DAVOOD KHADEMI, No. 2:21-cv-0902 KIN P 12 Petitioner, 13 Vv. ORDER 14 PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right 18 || to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th 19 | Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of 20 | the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 21 | Inthe 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 motion for appointment of 24 || counsel (ECF No. 7) is denied without prejudice. 25 || Dated: May 27, 2021 26 Aectl Aharon a7 KENDALL J.NE /mplow/; khad0902.31 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] DAVOOD KHADEMI, No. 2:21-cv-0902 KIN P 12 Petitioner, 13 Vv. ORDER 14 PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right 18 || to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th 19 | Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of 20 | the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 21 | Inthe 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 motion for appointment of 24 || counsel (ECF No. 7) is denied without prejudice. 25 || Dated: May 27, 2021 26 Aectl Aharon a7 KENDALL J.NE /mplow/; khad0902.31 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Khademi v. Santoro, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-khademi-v-santoro-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack