Camacho v. McDonald

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/17/09 ORDERING that 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED; 15 Motion for Extension of time is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file and serve his traverse on or before 8/17/09.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
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 denied; vs. M. MCDONALD, Warden, Respondent. / 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. Petitioner has also requested an extension of time to file a traverse in this matter. Good cause appearing, the court will grant petitioner's request. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's July 13, 2009 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 14) is ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSE GUADALUPE CAMACHO, Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-0988 GEB DAD P 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 DAD:9:kly cama0988.110+111 2. Petitioner's July 13, 2009 motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 15) is granted; and 3. Petitioner shall file and serve his traverse on or before August 17, 2009. DATED: July 17, 2009.

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?