Filed: May 31, 2012
Latest Update: May 31, 2012
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On May 14, 2012, petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to either file his reply to respondent's answer or an opposition to a motion, if filed by respondent. Petitioner explains that he has not received a copy of respondent's response to his habeas petition. Petitioner is advised that on May 3, 2012, the court granted res
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On May 14, 2012, petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to either file his reply to respondent's answer or an opposition to a motion, if filed by respondent. Petitioner explains that he has not received a copy of respondent's response to his habeas petition. Petitioner is advised that on May 3, 2012, the court granted resp..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 14, 2012, petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to either file his reply to respondent's answer or an opposition to a motion, if filed by respondent. Petitioner explains that he has not received a copy of respondent's response to his habeas petition. Petitioner is advised that on May 3, 2012, the court granted respondent an extension of time to file and serve a response by June 13, 2012. Therefore, petitioner's request for an extension of time will be denied as unnecessary.
On May 23, 2012, petitioner filed a second request for the appointment of counsel. For the same reasons provided in the court's previous order, filed on March 13, 2012, the request will be denied at this time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's May 14, 2012 request for an extension of time (Doc. No. 20) is denied as unnecessary; and
2. Petitioner's May 23, 2012 request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 22) is denied without prejudice.
