(HC) Stitt v. Pickett

E.D. California

(HC) Stitt v. Pickett

DecidedJanuary 30, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-00153

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Stitt v. Pickett ((HC) Stitt v. Pickett) 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) Stitt v. Pickett, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9

10 DERRIC MEREDITH RICK GENE Case No.: 1:20-cv-00153-JLT (HC) STITT, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Petitioner, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. (Doc. 3) 13 M. SPEARMAN, Warden, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 17 right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 18 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 19 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the 20 interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the 21 present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of 22 counsel at the present time. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is 23 DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27

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

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9

10 DERRIC MEREDITH RICK GENE Case No.: 1:20-cv-00153-JLT (HC) STITT, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Petitioner, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. (Doc. 3) 13 M. SPEARMAN, Warden, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 17 right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 18 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 19 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the 20 interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the 21 present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of 22 counsel at the present time. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is 23 DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Stitt v. Pickett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-stitt-v-pickett-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack