IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 26, 2012
PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
GARY SWARTHOUT, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
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. Thus, petitioner's request is denied.
On January 13, 2012, respondent filed a request for a thirty day extension of time to respond to the petition. This is respondent's first request, and is based on the additional time counsel needs to review documents and finalize a responsive pleading. Good cause appearing, respondent's request is granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's January 12, 2012, request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice; and
2. Respondent's January 13, 2012 request for extension of time (dkt. no. 20) is granted;
3. Respondent's responsive pleading shall be filed on or before February 23, 2012. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed thirty days thereafter.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.