IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 9, 2009
VINCENT BIAGAS, PETITIONER,
JAMES WALKER, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
By order filed April 28, 2009, petitioner's application was dismissed and thirty days' leave to file an amended petition was granted. Although petitioner has filed several documents, none of them are responsive to the court's order. To the extent that petitioner belatedly seeks an extension of time, he provides no coherent basis for such an extension, but the court will liberally permit him twenty additional days to submit an amended petition, with no further extension. To the extent he seeks appointment of counsel, petitioner is informed that 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 18, 2009 (docket # 7), request for an extension of time to file an amended petition, although belated, is granted;
2. Petitioner must file an amended petition within twenty days of the date of this order;
3. There will be no further extension of time; and 4. Petitioner's June 22, 2009 (docket # 8), request, construed as a motion for appointment of counsel, is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.