(HC)Coe

(HC)Coe v. Martinez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 5, 20222:22-cv-00422California181 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] ROBERT COE, No. 2:22-cv-0422 TLN CKD P Petitioner, Vv. ORDER A.L. MARTINEZ, Respondent. 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 18 || 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 20 of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 22 || appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s June 30, 2022 request for 24 || appointment of counsel is denied. Dated: July 5, 2022 □□ / del a CAROLYN K DELANEY 27 …

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.