Barron v. Biter

Full title: ISAIAH DUPRI BARRON, Petitioner, v. MARTIN BITER, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 30, 2012

No. 2:12-cv-0491 WBS DAD P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-0491 WBS DAD P

11-30-2012

ISAIAH DUPRI BARRON, Petitioner, v. MARTIN BITER, Respondent.

DALE A. DROZD

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 16, 2012, petitioner filed a motion in which he makes multiple requests in the alternative, including requests for court-ordered access to the prison law library at Kern Valley State Prison, for appointment of counsel, for an order granting his petition, and for a ninety day extension of time to file a traverse. The basis of petitioner's motion centers on alleged denial of access to the prison law library at Kern Valley State Prison. On November 26, 2012, respondent filed an opposition to the motion. Respondent contends that petitioner's contentions concerning denial of access to the prison law library have been mooted by his transfer to Salinas Valley State Prison. Respondent does not oppose petitioner's request for extension of time. On the same day, petitioner filed a document rescinding all requests except his renewed request for appointment of counsel and his request for extension of time to file a traverse.¹

1 Petitioner's first motion for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice by order filed July 5, 2012 (Doc. No. 19).

As the court noted in its July 5, 2012 order, there is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). Section 3006A of title 18 of the United States Code 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. However, as with the prior order, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. For that reason, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. Petitioner's motion for extension of time will be granted.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's November 16, 2012 and November 26, 2012 motions (Doc. Nos. 25 and 28) are granted with respect to his request for extension of time and denied in all other respects; and

2. Petitioner is granted ninety days from the date of this order in which to file and serve a traverse.

________________________

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE