(PC)Wells v. Newsom
This text of (PC)Wells v. Newsom ((PC)Wells v. Newsom) 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
WADE 2 □□ VEY EONS bo PNR ewey FP Oye At Vt 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | ANDRE WELLS, No. 2:20-cv-1557 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 V. ORDER 14 | GAVIN NEWSOME, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel on the ground he is disabled. Petitioner’s 18 || request is premature because he has not yet filed a valid pleading in this case. See ECF No. 3. 19 | Moreover, this is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas (or putative habeas) 20 || proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). The interests of justice 21 | do not require appointment of counsel at the present time. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; Rule 8(c), 22 || Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 || counsel, ECF No. 6, is DENIED without prejudice. 25 | DATED: August 12, 2020 . 26 Attten— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PC)Wells v. Newsom, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pcwells-v-newsom-caed-2020.