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.

Johnson v. Runnels

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


September 21, 2010

BYRON EUGENE JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
v.
D.L. RUNNELS, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman 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.

Petitioner has requested a sixty day extension of time to file a reply to respondent's supplemental response to the amended petition. Petitioner alleges that he requires additional time due to inadequate law library access. Good cause appearing, this request is granted, but no further requests for extension of time will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 59) is denied;

2. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 58) is granted; petitioner's reply to respondent's supplemental response to the amended petition is due within sixty days of the date of this order; no further requests for extension of time will be granted.

20100921

© 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.