West v. Dickinson
Filing
68
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/05/11 denying 66 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 67 is granted. Petitioner shall file and serve a traverse within 30 days of the date of service of this order. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MACK A. WEST, JR.,
11
Petitioner,
12
No. CIV S-09-3147 KJM DAD P
vs.
13
KATHLEEN DICKINSON,
14
Respondent.
15
ORDER
/
16
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. As the court previously
17
advised petitioner, there currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas
18
proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C.
19
§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice
20
so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does
21
not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present
22
time.
23
Petitioner has also requested a second extension of time to file a traverse. Good
24
cause appearing, the court will grant petitioner’s request.
25
/////
26
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 66) is denied;
3
2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 67) is granted; and
4
3. Petitioner shall file and serve a traverse within thirty days of the date of service
5
of this order.
6
DATED: October 5, 2011.
7
8
9
10
DAD:9
west3147.111t(2)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
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?