ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel, on the grounds that he has a low TABE score (3.0), has no legal training, has limited access to the prison law library, and does not have the financial resources to retain legal counsel or maintain the representation of his appellate counsel. (ECF No. 13.)

There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). While appointment of counsel may be warranted at any stage of a habeas proceeding "if the interests of justice so require," see Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the court finds that the interests of justice would not be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Petitioner's indigence and lack of legal expertise do not, in themselves, warrant appointment of counsel, because these are circumstances shared by most prisoners. Petitioner's additional concerns appear to be of minimal consequence at this stage of the proceedings. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, which substantively addresses the merits of the petition and petitioner's underlying conviction. The answer does not assert any procedural bars to this action. Petitioner still has time to file and serve a reply (the current deadline is September 20, 2013), and the court will extend that deadline by this order.

For these reasons, petitioner's request for appointment of counsel will be denied at this time. If the court finds, upon review of the petition, answer and reply, that petitioner's case is significantly compromised by his pro se status, the court may reconsider petitioner's request for appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 13), is denied without prejudice; and

2. Petitioner shall have until Friday, October 4, 2013, to file and serve his reply brief.