Spearman

(HC) Thompson v. Spearman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 6, 20192:19-cv-02328California358 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KANE MICHAEL THOMPSON, No. 2:19-cv-2328 DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER M.E. SPEARMAN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 2. In support of the motion, petitioner asserts that he suffers from a mental disability – “A.D.H.D.” – and that as a result, he is “unable to proceed alone” in these proceedings. See id. He states that the disability makes it difficult for him to understand and that it prevents him from focusing long enough to represent himself. See id. Finally, petitioner contends that the appointment of counsel is warranted because the issues in his case are particularly complex. See id. There currently exists no absolute right to the 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…

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.