Thi Kim Xuan Nguyen v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility, et al.
This text of Thi Kim Xuan Nguyen v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility, et al. (Thi Kim Xuan Nguyen v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility, et al.) 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
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7
8 THI KIM XUAN NGUYEN, Case No. 1:26-cv-01625-JLT-SKO (HC)
9 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 10 v. [Doc. 2] 11 WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 12 Respondents. 13
14 15 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 16 right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 17 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the 19 interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. At the 20 present time, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of 21 counsel. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of 23 counsel is DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25
26 Dated: March 4, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Thi Kim Xuan Nguyen v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thi-kim-xuan-nguyen-v-warden-of-the-california-city-detention-facility-et-caed-2026.