(PC)Wells

(PC)Wells v. Newsom

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 13, 20202:20-cv-01557California187 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

WADE □□ VEY EONS bo PNR ewey FP Oye At Vt 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDRE WELLS, No. 2:20-cv-1557 AC P Petitioner, V. ORDER GAVIN NEWSOME, Respondent. 16 Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel on the ground he is disabled. Petitioner’s 18 || request is premature because he has not yet filed a valid pleading in this case. See ECF No. 3. 19 Moreover, this is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas (or putative habeas) 20 || proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at the present time. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; Rule 8(c), 22 || Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 || counsel, ECF No. 6, is DENIED without prejudice. DATED: August 12, 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.