IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 16, 2009
JASON A. DAILEY, PETITIONER,
M. MARTEL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
On June 9, 2009, petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and a request for extension of time to file a reply to respondent's answer. Respondent filed the answer on March 6, 2009. Petitioner had thirty days from that date to file a reply. Because petitioner did not file a reply within that time, the court deemed the matter submitted without a reply. On June 4, 2009, the court recommended that the petition be denied. For this reason, the motion for an extension of time to file a reply is denied. However, the court will grant petitioner thirty days from the date of this order to file objections.
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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's June 9, 2009, motion for extension of time to file a reply (no. 26) is denied; petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file objections to the June 4, 2009, findings and recommendations;
2. Petitioner's June 9, 2009 motion for appointment of counsel (no. 26) is denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.