IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 19, 2008
WILLIAM E. BROWN, JR., PETITIONER,
T. FELKER, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve objections to the findings and recommendations filed July 15, 2008. He has also requested that the court issue a petition for a writ of mandate, directing the warden to ensure that petitioner has access to the law library so he is able to prepare his objections. He has also filed his objections to the findings and recommendations, which will be deemed timely.
In addition, petitioner has filed a motion for 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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's request for an extension of time (docket no. 46) is granted, and his objections to the findings and recommendations are deemed timely.
2. Petitioner's request for the issuance of a writ of mandate (docket no. 49) is denied as moot.
3. Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel (docket no. 50) is denied.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.