Morales

(HC) Nixon v. Morales

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 26, 20242:24-cv-01531California334 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDON NIXON, No. 2:24-CV-1531-KJM-DMC-P Petitioner, v. ORDER RAUL MORALES, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s renewed motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 18. 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. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. Petitioner's prior motion for the appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice to renewal following the filing of an answer. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.