(HC) Vigil v. Lizarraqa

E.D. California

(HC) Vigil v. Lizarraqa

DecidedOctober 21, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01048

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Vigil v. Lizarraqa ((HC) Vigil v. Lizarraqa) 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) Vigil v. Lizarraqa, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE PAUL VIGIL, JR., No. 2:20-CV-1048-WBS-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for the 19 appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 2 and 15). 20 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 21 proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. 22 § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of 23 justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the 24 court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at 25 the present time. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for 2 || appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 2 and 15) are denied without prejudice to renewal, at the 3 | earliest, after a response to the petition has been filed. 4 5 | Dated: October 20, 2020 Ssvcqo_ 6 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE PAUL VIGIL, JR., No. 2:20-CV-1048-WBS-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for the 19 appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 2 and 15). 20 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 21 proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. 22 § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of 23 justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the 24 court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at 25 the present time. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for 2 || appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 2 and 15) are denied without prejudice to renewal, at the 3 | earliest, after a response to the petition has been filed. 4 5 | Dated: October 20, 2020 Ssvcqo_ 6 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Vigil v. Lizarraqa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-vigil-v-lizarraqa-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack