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.

Mullin v. Martel

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


October 15, 2010

HERBERT WILLIAM MULLIN, PETITIONER,
v.
MARTEL, WARDEN, 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. The petition is of questionable merit both from an exhaustion standpoint and substantively.

However, in light of petitioner's apparent health condition requiring extended chemotherapy treatments, the court will permit petitioner a very liberal extension of time to respond to respondent's pending motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's October 1, 2010 (docket # 23) request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings;

2. Petitioner is, however, granted an extension of time until December 10, 2010, to file his response to respondent's September 10, 2010, pending motion to dismiss; and

3. There will be no further extension of time.

20101015

© 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.