Xavier v. Roche et al

Filing 100

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 02/03/15 denying 98 Motion to Appoint Counsel and denying 95 Motion for Extension to file a reply. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY R. XAVIER,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:09-cv-0783 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

M. FRENCH, et al.,

15

Respondents.

16
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute

17
18

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460

19

(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage

20

of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

21

In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the

22

appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff has also filed a reply to defendants’ answer. (ECF No. 97.) Such a filing is not

23
24

contemplated by the federal or local rules and will be disregarded.

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 98) is denied; and

3

2. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a reply (ECF No. 95) is denied as

4

moot.

5

Dated: February 3, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11

2/mp; xavi0783.110

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2