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.

Walker v. Guirbino

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


October 19, 2009

HAROLD WALKER, PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE S. GUIRBINO, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE; ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCUMENT #19) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 9, 2009, petitioner filed a motion for a ninety-day extension of time to file a response to Respondent's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 19). In that same filing, Petitioner requested appointment of counsel.

Regarding his request for additional time, Petitioner maintains that he did not receive Respondent's motion to dismiss until October 1, 2009. The Court does not grant ninety-day extensions of time, except under the most extraordinary of circumstances, which are not present in this instance. However, taking Petitioner at his word regarding the date he received Respondent's motion to dismiss, the Court will grant Petitioner one extension of time of thirty days.

Regarding appointment of counsel, there currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 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), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 19), is DENIED; and,

2. Petitioner request for a 90-day extension of time to file an opposition to Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted in part. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file his opposition to Respondent's motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20091019

© 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.