IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 20, 2012
JOSE J. HERNANDEZ,
NEW FOLSOM STATE PRISON WARDEN,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 28) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 28)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 16, 2012, petitioner filed a motion to extend time to file objections to the findings and recommendations, citing his lack of access to the prison law library as grounds therefore. (Doc. 28). In the same document, Petitioner also requests appointment of counsel.
There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 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), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Petitioner's motion for extension of time (Doc. 28), is GRANTED. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file an objection to the findings and recommendations; and,
2. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 28), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.