Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DAVIS v. LEWIS, 2:13-cv-2570 WBS DAD P. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140911771 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. 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
More

ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. 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 has also requested an extension of time to file a traverse. Good cause appearing, the court will grant petitioner's request.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 19) is denied;

2. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a traverse (Doc. No. 20) is granted; and

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file and serve his traverse.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer