IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 11, 2013
DANIEL T. THOMAS, PETITIONER,
E. VALENZUELA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
On March 8, 2013, the court ordered petitioner to file an opposition to respondent's January 28, 2013 motion to dismiss within 30 days. (Dkt. No. 16.) On the same day, prior to the issuance of the order, petitioner's request for a 45-day extension of time to file an opposition was docketed in this action. (Dkt. No. 17.) Good cause appearing, the court will grant petitioner an additional fifteen days to file an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, for a total of 45 days. Thus petitioner's time to respond to the motion will be extended until April 22, 2013.
Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 18.) 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner shall file an opposition, if any, to respondent's motion to dismiss on or before April 22, 2013;
2. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 18) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.