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.

Pacheco v. McDonald

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


January 19, 2010

ALFREDO PACHECO, PETITIONER,
v.
W. MCDONALD, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner has requested 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.

Also, petitioner has filed a request for a 90 day extension of time to file a reply to respondent's answer. Petitioner is granted forty-five days to file a reply to the answer. No further extensions of time will be granted but for a showing of substantial cause.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's January 8, 2010, request for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 10) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings;

2. Petitioner's January 8, 2010, request for an extension of time (Docket No. 11) is granted; and

3. Petitioner is granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to file a reply to the answer.

20100119

© 1992-2010 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.