Warden

(HC) Curry v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 20252:24-cv-00956California186 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID HENRY CURRY, No. 2:24-cv-0956 CKD P Petitioner, Vv. ORDER WARDEN, CALIFORNIA MEDICAL

FACILITY,

15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 18 || 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 20 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 22 || appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s February 7, 2025, request for 24 || appointment of counsel is DENIED. 25 || Dated: 02/14/ Pod) oP aed a ANI fle A - * CAROLYN…

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.