Gilchrist v. Lamarque

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/31/2008 ORDERING Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal (docket no. 32) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc and the notice filed 1/9/2008 is timely; Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel (docket no. 34) is DENIED; and Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 33) is DENIED as unnecessary.(Matson, R)

(HC) Gilchrist v. Lamarque

Doc. 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent. / Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 9, 2007, the district judge adopted the findings and recommendations issued August 27, 2007 and entered judgment dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On December 11, 2007, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time, up to and including January 9, 2008, in which to file the notice of appeal and request for a certificate of appealability. It appears that the request was mailed on December 5, 2007. It is timely. Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5). ///// ///// 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM GILCHRIST, Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0920 FCD KJM P

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2/mp gilc0920.110+

On January 9, 2008, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, request for a certificate of appealability, motion for the appointment of counsel and request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 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. Moreover, petitioner was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on June 1, 2004; there is no need to renew the request. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal (docket no. 32) is granted nunc pro tunc and the notice filed January 9, 2008 is timely; 2. Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel (docket no. 34) is denied; and 3. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 33) is denied as unnecessary. DATED: January 31, 2008.

2