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.

Carl R. Love v. James D. Hartley

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


January 30, 2013

CARL R. LOVE, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY, WARDEN, RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 18, 2013, petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel and for a second extension of time to file a response to respondents' October 23, 2012 motion to dismiss.

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.

Good cause appearing, petitioner's motion for extension of time will be granted. No further extensions of time will be granted.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's January 18, 2013, request for appointment of counsel (Docket No.

16) is denied without prejudice;

2. Petitioner's January 18, 2013 request for an extension of time (Docket No. 16) is granted; and

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a response to the October 23, 2012 motion to dismiss. No further extensions of time will be granted.

20130130

© 1992-2013 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.