Rosiles v. Pfeiffer, 2:17-cv-02600 KJM GGH P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190912813
Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel based on his mental impairment. ECF No. 45. 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 its August 23, 20
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel based on his mental impairment. ECF No. 45. 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 its August 23, 201..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel based on his mental impairment. ECF No. 45. 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 its August 23, 2019 findings and recommendations, the court determined that petitioner's allegations failed to demonstrate that his mental impairments were the but-for cause for his delay in filing a timely federal habeas petition. See ECF No. 44. Accordingly, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served here, by the appointment of counsel at the present time.
Petitioner has also requested an extension of time to file and serve objections to the pending findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 45) is denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings;
2. Petitioner's request for an extension of time is (ECF No. 46) granted; and
2. Petitioner shall file and serve his objections within thirty days from the date of this order.
Source: Leagle
