Frank

Frank v. Arnald

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 20203:18-cv-03967California240 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANTHONY A. FRANK, Case No. 18-cv-03967-EMC Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

? v. COUNSEL ERIC ARNALD, Docket No. 26 Respondent.

Petitioner has filed a second request for appointment of counsel to represent him in this || action. A district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court || determines that the interests of Justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). || Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that || appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. At this time, the 20 || interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this…

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.