Anderson v. Gipson

Full title: AARON ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 27, 2013

2:12-cv-2964 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 27, 2013)

Opinion

AARON ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent. No. 2:12-cv-2964 KJN P United States District Court, E.D. California. June 27, 2013

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, 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.

         In addition, petitioner has requested an extension of time to file a reply to the answer. On June 26, 2013, petitioner was granted a thirty-day extension of time to file a reply.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; and

         2. Petitioner's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 23) is denied as unnecessary.