Bolin v. Newcomb

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied petitioner Paul C. Bolin’s request for appointment of counsel in his habeas proceedings. The denial was without prejudice to renewal at a later stage, because the court did not find that the interests of justice presently required appointed counsel.

Holdings

1. There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings, and counsel need be appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A and Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases only when the interests of justice so require. The interests of justice did not require appointment of counsel at that time.

Questions Presented

1. Whether counsel should be appointed for petitioner in the pending habeas proceeding.

Disposition

other