Filson

(HC) Williams v. Filson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 5, 20192:18-cv-01305California255 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARCELL WILLIAMS, No. 2:18-cv-1305 KJM KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER TIMOTHY FILSON, Respondent. 16 Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel and, in the alternative, asks for court orders to obtain mental health records from various correctional facilities. However, the undersigned is aware that petitioner suffers from a mental illness and is currently on antidepressant medication. No additional mental health records are required to so demonstrate. Petitioner’s request for orders to obtain mental health records is denied. 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. The undersigned has reviewed the pleadings and does not find that 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.