Holbrook

(HC) Chavarin v. Holbrook

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 5, 20202:19-cv-01521California186 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

wOAOe 2 LOU EINUING Gor POC Ve Yh Vt 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARNULFO CHAVARIN, No. 2:19-cv-1521 TLN KJN P Petitioner, Vv. ORDER DAVID HOLBROOK, Respondent. 16 Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right 18 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 20 || the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Inthe present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23) is denied without prejudice. Dated: May 5, 2020 % …

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.