Finn

(HC) Ruiz v. Finn

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 20, 20212:21-cv-00668California360 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOEY ROBERT RUIZ, No. 2:21-cv-0668 AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER CLAUDE F. FINN, WARDEN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 4. In support of the request, petitioner states in part that he is unable to retain private counsel, that he is ‘untrained in the law,” and that he faces “potential serious consequences” if counsel is not appointed to his case. See id. at 2. Petitioner further argues that requiring him to seek legal assistance from another inmate deprives him of his constitutional right of access to the courts. See id. at 3. 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 court…

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.