Gentry v. Grounds
Filing
22
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/4/13 DENYING 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a reply to respondents answer. No further extensions will be granted. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JERRY WAYNE GENTRY,
12
Petitioner,
13
v.
No. 2:13-cv-0142 WBS KJN P
ORDER
14
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,
15
Respondent.
16
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute
17
18
right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460
19
(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage
20
of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.
21
In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the
22
appointment of counsel at the present time.
Petitioner will be granted one final extension of time in which to file his reply to
23
24
respondent’s answer.
25
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
1. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 21) is denied without
27
prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; and
28
////
1
1
2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a reply to
2
respondent’s answer. No further extensions will be granted.
3
Dated: October 4, 2013
4
5
6
gent0142.110
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?