IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 27, 2013
RICHARD VINCENT ROOD, PETITIONER,
GARY SWARTHOUT, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 21. 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.
Petitioner also seeks an extension of time to file his traverse. ECF No. 21. Good cause appearing, the court will grant petitioner a second extension of time to file his traverse. Petitioner shall file and serve his traverse within 60 days of the filing date of this order. Petitioner is advised that further requests for an extension shall be disfavored.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's February 13, 2013 motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No.
21) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; and
2. Petitioner's February 13, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file his traverse (ECF No. 21) is granted. Petitioner shall file and serve his traverse within 60 days of the filing date of this order. Further requests for an extension of time to file the traverse shall be disfavored.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.