Matteson

(HC) Kishor v. Matteson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 3, 20212:21-cv-01359California294 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CHANDRA KISHOR, No. 2:21-cv-1359 JAM DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER GIGI MATTESON, Warden, Respondent. 15 Petitioner is a state inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims he should be released from custody because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Presently before the court is petitioner’s second motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 14.) In support of his motion to appoint counsel petitioner states that he is incarcerated and unable to afford counsel. 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 recommended that the petition be dismissed without…

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.