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.

Atherton v. Knowles

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


September 30, 2009

WILLIAM MAY ATHERTON, PETITIONER,
v.
MIKE KNOWLES, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has requested that the court appoint counsel. He has also requested an extension of time to file and serve a traverse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).

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). The court may appointment counsel at any stage of the proceedings "if the interests of justice so require." See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's September 17, 2009 request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice; and,

2. Petitioner's September 14, 2009 motion is granted and petitioner has 30 days from the date this order is served to file and serve a traverse.

20090930

© 1992-2009 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.