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.

Lozano v. Clark

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


July 29, 2010

ROBERT T. LOZANO, PETITIONER,
v.
KEN CLARK, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. Petitioner requests that counsel be appointed to prepare his reply to the answer. 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.

Because the motion for counsel is denied, petitioner is granted an extension of time to file his reply.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's July 23, 2010 motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 20) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings;

2. Petitioner's reply to the answer is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

20100729

© 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.