UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 22, 2010
RICARDO RUIZ, PETITIONER,
RICHARD KIRKLAND, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Otis D. Wright II United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the entire file de novo, including the Petition; the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed on October 20, 2009; and the records and files. Based upon the Court's de novo review, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
On November 24, 2009, the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R to December 9, 2009. (Dkt. No. 42.) On December 22, 2009, the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner's second request for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R to January 6, 2010. (Dkt. No. 44.) On January 13, 2010, the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner's third request for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R to February 8, 2010. (Dkt. No. 46.) On February 12, 2010, the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner's fourth request for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R to March 8, 2010. (Dkt. No. 48.) The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner that absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extensions of time would be granted. (Id.)
On March 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a fifth request for an extension of time. He stated that he could "get nothing done due to this lock down, also my ignorance to the law and know [sic] help." As of the filing of Petitioner's latest request, the R&R had been pending for well over four months. Petitioner submits no evidence as to how a prison lock down has affected his ability to draft objections. According to the Program Status Report attached to Petitioner's fourth request for extension of time, the prison is on a modified program under which the legal library is available for approved court deadlines. (Dkt. No. 47.) Petitioner does not state he requested and was denied access to the law library. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate circumstances that warrant a fifth extension of time.
Petitioner also requests appointment of counsel. Habeas petitioners generally do not have a constitutional right to appointment of counsel. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed. 2d 517 (1991); Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed. 2d 539 (1987); Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 932 (1998). The Court has reviewed the pleadings and record in this case and has determined that the interests of justice do not warrant appointment of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file objections is denied and Petitioner's request for counsel is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.