Harris v. Gipson

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 07/30/14 denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel and granting 29 Motion for Extension of time. Petitioner shall file a traverse within 30 days from the date of this order. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL JAY HARRIS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-2604 LKK CKD P v. ORDER CONNIE GIPSON, 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 has also requested an extension of time to file a traverse. Good cause 23 24 appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23) is denied without 25 26 prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 27 //// 28 //// 1 1 2. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 29) is granted; and 2 3. Petitioner shall file a traverse within thirty days from the date of this order. 3 Dated: July 30, 2014 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 2/md; harr2604.111 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?