Pena v. Cate

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 2/27/13 ORDERING that the Motion for Appointment of Counsel 39 is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Petitioner is granted until 3/30/13, within which to file his reply to Respondent's answer. (Becknal, R)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MELVIN RICHARD PENA,
No. 2:11-cv-01003-JKS
Petitioner,
vs.

ORDER
[Re: Motions at Docket Nos. 39 and 40]

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation,
Respondent.

At Docket No. 39 Petitioner Melvin Richard Pena has moved for the appointment of
counsel, and at Docket No. 40 he has also moved to extend the time to file his Traverse. The
record reflects that this is the third request by Pena to appoint counsel. This Court denied both of
Pena’s earlier requests.1 While this Court is not unmindful of the plight of unrepresented state
prisoners in federal habeas proceedings, as noted in the prior Orders, there is no constitutional
right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings, and Pena has not provided any reason for this
Court to reconsider and reverse its prior determinations not to appoint counsel in this case.
Pena’s request for additional time to reply to Respondent’s answer stands on a different
footing. Although this Court has granted two prior requests by Pena for an extension of time to
reply, both were reasonably necessary as a result of circumstances beyond Pena’s control.
Indeed, the last extension was necessitated by the fact that Respondent lost Pena’s papers in

1

Docket Nos. 30, 37.

transit between prisons. This Court also notes, however, that more than four months have lapsed
since Respondent’s answer was served on Pena. Contrary to Pena’s contentions, the issues
presented in this case are not unduly complex, either legally or factually. Accordingly, while this
Court is agreeable to granting a further reasonable extension of time, Pena is cautioned that he is
not entitled to an open-ended extension while he seeks out and obtains assistance in pursuing this
matter. Therefore, Pena should not assume that this Court will view favorably any further
requests for additional time to reply.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Motion for Appointment of Counsel at
Docket No. 39 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Petitioner is granted until March 30, 2013,
within which to file his reply to Respondent’s answer.
Dated: February 27, 2013.
/s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.
JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.
United States District Judge

2