Herrera v. Gipson

Full title: ROBERTO HERRERA, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 25, 2012

No. 2:12-cv-0508-KJM-DAD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 25, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-0508-KJM-DAD P

07-25-2012

ROBERTO HERRERA, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent.

DALE A. DROZD

ORDER

Petitioner has requested the appointment of 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. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.

In addition, petitioner has filed a motion for an extension of time to file and serve his traverse. Good cause appearing, the motion will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's July 16, 2012, motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 26) is denied without prejudice;

2. Petitioner's July 16, 2012 motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 26) is granted; and

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and serve a traverse.

_________________

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE