(HC) Kishor v. Matteson

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 3, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-01359·Unknown

Opinion

CHANDRA KISHOR, No. 2:21-cv-1359 JAM DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER GIGI MATTESON, Warden, Respondent. Petitioner is a state inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims he should be released from custody because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Presently before the court is petitioner’s second motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 14.) In support of his motion to appoint counsel petitioner states that he is incarcerated and unable to afford 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. The undersigned has recommended that the petition be dismissed without leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.) Thus, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. //// Accordingly, IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. Dated: September 2, 2021 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ppaz DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Habeas/R/kish1359.110(2)

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

(HC) Kishor v. Matteson, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

(HC) Kishor v. Matteson ((HC) Kishor v. Matteson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nevius v. Sumner
105 F.3d 453 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)