Rathbun vs. Attorney General

Filing 30

ORDER signed by District Judge Virginia A. Phillips on 1/8/10 ORDERING that the Court will grant one final twenty-five (25) day extension. No further requests for an extension of time to file the untimely traverse will be entertained. Petitioner ma y file a traverse no later than 2/21/10. On that date, the Petition will stand fully briefed and be taken under submission; and As stated in this Court's prior rulings, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. Therefore, Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN EDWARD RATHBUN, Case No. CIV S-06-1311 VAP Petitioner, v. K. PROPSER, Warden, [Motion filed on October 9, 2007] ORDER (1) GRANTING 25-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE and (2) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL The Respondent. 15 ________________________ / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petition was filed on June 29, 2006. Answer on October 11, 2006. untimely traverse. On October 9, 2007, Respondent filed an Petitioner filed a motion seeking leave to file an On January 5, 2009, the action was transferred to this Court pursuant to an Order of Designation of Judge to Serve in Another District Within the Ninth Circuit. The Court discovered that Petitioner's motion to file an untimely traverse had never been ruled upon, and granted the motion on December 1, 2009, allowing Petitioner to file a traverse within 30 days of that Order. (Dkt. No. 24.) 1 On December 14, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion to in which he argued he was never 2 Appoint Counsel, 4 petition. 3 properly served with a copy of Respondent's answer to his The Court denied the motion on December 18, 5 2009, but ordered Respondent to serve Petitioner with a 6 copy of its answer within 7 days, and allowed Petitioner 7 an additional 30 days from the date of service to file 8 his traverse. 9 10 On December 23, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion for (Dkt. No. 28.) (Dkt. 11 Extension of Time to File Traverse to Respondent's Answer 12 and to Compel the Appointment of Counsel. 13 He then filed a second motion seeking a 60-day extension 14 of time to file his traverse on January 6, 2010. 15 No. 29.) Petitioner contends that his limited access to (Dkt. No. 26.) 16 the prison law library makes it difficult to for him to 17 respond to the Answer by January 27, 2010. 18 19 Petitioner's traverse in this matter was initially (Dkt. The Court has already granted several requests 20 due on November 20, 2006, over three years ago. 21 No. 8.) 22 to extend the time allowed, and ensure Petitioner has the 23 appropriate filings necessary to complete his traverse. 24 The Court will grant one final twenty-five (25) day 25 extension. No further requests for an extension of time 26 to file the untimely traverse will be entertained. 27 Petitioner may file a traverse no later than February 21, 28 2 1 2010. 3 4 On that date, the Petition will stand fully 2 briefed and be taken under submission. As stated in this Court's prior rulings, the Court See 18 U.S.C. 5 does not find that the interests of justice would be 6 served by the appointment of counsel. 7 3006A. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 Dated: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Therefore, Petitioner's motion for the 8 appointment of counsel is DENIED. January 8, 2010 VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?