Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roark v. Marshall

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 4, 2008

ROBERT L. ROARK, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN MARSHALL, WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.

Petitioner has also notified the court that he has not received respondent's answer to his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Due to petitioner's recent transfers, it appears that respondent may not have been able to properly serve petitioner with the answer. Good cause appearing, the court will direct respondent to re-serve petitioner with the answer in this matter.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's July 25, 2008 request for appointment of counsel is denied;

2. Respondent shall re-serve petitioner with the answer in this matter within thirty days of the date of this order; and

3. Petitioner shall file a traverse, if any, within sixty days after service of the answer.

20080804

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.