From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sosnoskie v. Brunsman

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division at Dayton
Oct 29, 2010
Case No. 3:10-cv-267 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 3:10-cv-267.

October 29, 2010


ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY AND DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 8) which includes a request for the appointment of counsel.

Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to file his reply is GRANTED and the time to reply is extended to and including December 27, 2010.

Petitioner also seeks appointment of counsel. Appointment of counsel in habeas corpus cases is required only in capital cases and those in which an evidentiary hearing has been ordered. While the Court has authority to appoint counsel in other cases, scarcity of funds counsels reserving appointments for trial, appellate, capital, and evidentiary hearing cases. Accordingly, the request for counsel is denied without leave to its renewal if the Court orders an evidentiary hearing in this case.

October 28, 2010.


Summaries of

Sosnoskie v. Brunsman

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division at Dayton
Oct 29, 2010
Case No. 3:10-cv-267 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2010)
Case details for

Sosnoskie v. Brunsman

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT J. SOSNOSKIE, Petitioner, v. TIMOTHY BRUNSMAN, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division at Dayton

Date published: Oct 29, 2010

Citations

Case No. 3:10-cv-267 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2010)