MARTIN v. BACA, 3:15-cv-00036-RCJ-WGC. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160129962
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. On November 9, 2015, this court denied petitioner Martin's motion for reconsideration of its order denying appointment of counsel (ECF No. 31). Martin has now filed a motion for relief of judgment or order, that is, he is asking the court to reconsider — for the second time — the order denying appointment of counsel (ECF No. 32). Mart
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. On November 9, 2015, this court denied petitioner Martin's motion for reconsideration of its order denying appointment of counsel (ECF No. 31). Martin has now filed a motion for relief of judgment or order, that is, he is asking the court to reconsider — for the second time — the order denying appointment of counsel (ECF No. 32). Marti..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. On November 9, 2015, this court denied petitioner Martin's motion for reconsideration of its order denying appointment of counsel (ECF No. 31). Martin has now filed a motion for relief of judgment or order, that is, he is asking the court to reconsider — for the second time — the order denying appointment of counsel (ECF No. 32). Martin may not simply file serial motions for reconsideration of the order denying counsel. Moreover, Martin has not presented any new arguments or allegations that appointment of counsel is warranted here.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall not seek further reconsideration of the court's order dated July 27, 2015 denying petitioner's motion for counsel (ECF No. 13).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to extend time to oppose respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file and serve his opposition within sixty (60) days of the date of this order. The court notes that, absent extraordinary circumstances, it is unlikely to grant further extensions of time to oppose the motion to dismiss.
Source: Leagle
