White v. Knipp

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/1/2013 DENYING, without prejudice, petitioner's 23 request for appointment of counsel ; GRANTING petitioner's 22 request for an extension of time; and petitioner has 30 days to file and serve a traverse; however, no further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOHN DOUGLAS WHITE,
Petitioner,

11
12

vs.

13

No. 2:11-cv-03016 TLN DAD P

WILLIAM KNIPP,
Respondent.

14

ORDER
/

15

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

16
17

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

18

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

19

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8©), Fed. R. Governing

20

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

21

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.
Also, petitioner has filed his second request for an extension of time to file a

22
23

traverse. Good cause appearing, the request will be granted. No further extensions of time will

24

be granted for this purpose.

25

/////

26

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Petitioner’s April 25, 2013, request for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 23)

3

is denied without prejudice;
2. Petitioner's April 25, 2013 request for an extension of time (Doc. No. 22) is

4
5

granted; and
3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which

6
7

to file and serve a traverse. However, no further extensions of time will be granted for this

8

purpose.

9 DATED: May 1, 2013.
10
11
12
13
14

DAD: md/4
whit3016.110+111.sec

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2