Carlin v. Cullen

Filing 6

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES AND DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2010)

Download PDF
Carlin v. Cullen Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES CARLIN, Petitioner, v. VINCE CULLEN, warden, Respondent. / No. C 10-3156 SI (pr) ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES AND DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL Petitioner has filed an application for (a) a 60-day extension of the deadline for him to file his opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss and (b) appointment of counsel. (Docket # 5.) Upon due consideration, the court grants the requested extension of time. No later than February 4, 2011, petitioner must file and serve on respondent's counsel any opposition to the motion to dismiss. No later than February 18, 2011, respondent must file and serve his reply brief (if any) in support of his motion to dismiss. The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. A district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to obtain representation." 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 prevent due process violations. See id. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 10, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?