Lopez v. Salinas

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/14/10. DIRECTING RESPONDENT to File a Response to Petition within 60 days. Clerk to serve a copy of this order, a copy of the Petition and the Order re Consent on the Attorney General. Petitioner's 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to return to petitioner his $5.00 check submitted with his amended petition. (cc Michael Farrell, Financial) (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(HC) Lopez v. Salinas Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 vs. VICTOR LOPEZ, Petitioner, No. 2:10-cv-3168 KJN P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 S.M. SALINAS, Warden, 14 15 16 Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an amended ORDER 17 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Dkt. No. 7), in response to this 18 court's order filed December 1, 2010 (Dkt. No. 4). 19 The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus challenges a 2009 decision of the 20 Board of Parole Hearings denying petitioner parole. Because petitioner may be entitled to relief if 21 the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file a 22 response to petitioner's amended habeas petition. 23 In addition, petitioner has sent the court a check for the $5.00 filing fee, although 24 petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis was previously granted. (Dkt. No. 4.) 25 Petitioner's check will be returned. 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Finally, petitioner moves for appointment of counsel, based on his limited finances 2 and the complexity of the legal process. (Dkt. No. 6.) There is no absolute right to appointment 3 of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). 4 While United States Code, title 18, section 3006A, authorizes the appointment of counsel at any 5 stage of a habeas proceeding "if the interests of justice so require," see Rule 8(c), Federal Rules 6 Governing 2254 Cases, the court finds, at this time, that petitioner's case does not present 7 extraordinary circumstance requiring appointment of counsel in the interests of justice. 8 9 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to return to petitioner his $5.00 check submitted 10 with his amended petition; 11 12 prejudice; 13 3. Respondent is directed to file and serve a response to petitioner's amended 2. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 6) is denied without 14 habeas petition (Dkt. No. 7) within sixty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. 15 Governing 2254 Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other documents 16 relevant to the issues presented in the petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing 2254 Cases; 17 4. If the response to the amended habeas petition is an answer, petitioner's reply, if 18 any, shall be filed and served within twenty-eight days after service of the answer; 19 5. If the response to the amended habeas petition is a motion, petitioner's 20 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within twenty21 eight days after service of the motion, and respondent's reply, if any, shall be filed and served 22 within fourteen days thereafter; and 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 2 1 6. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order, the consent/ 2 reassignment form contemplated by Appendix A(k) to the Local Rules of this court, and a copy of 3 the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Dkt. No. 7) on 4 Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General. 5 DATED: December 14, 2010 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 lope3168.100 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?