IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 14, 2013
SANTOS IGNACIO LOPEZ PETITIONER,
TIM VIRGA, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel stating that he is unaware of what he is required to do next in order to pursue federal habeas relief.
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.
As indicated in the court's October 30, 2012 findings and recommendations, if petitioner objects to the findings and recommendations concluding that his federal habeas petition should be denied, he should file a document with the court entitled "Objections to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations" stating his reasons for objecting to the recommendation. Failure to file objections may waive his right to appeal the District Court's order on those findings and recommendations. In light of petitioner's request, the court will sua sponte grant him an additional 30 days for petitioner to file with the court any objections he may have to the pending findings and recommendations.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's January 4, 2013 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 23) is denied without prejudice; and
2. Petitioner is granted an additional thirty days from the date of this order in which to file his objections to the pending findings and recommendations.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.