Opinion
No. CIV S-08-2761 JAM CHS (HC).
December 8, 2010
ORDER
Petitioner, Charles Branch, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petitioner for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 8, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered herein recommending that the petitioner be denied. Petitioner now requests (1) an extension of time in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations and (2) the appointment of counsel.
Petitioner has filed a document entitled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," which the court has construed as described above.
Good cause appearing, the request for an extension of time is granted and Petitioner has thirty days from the date of the entry of this order in which to file his objections. However, there currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, under certain circumstances, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of a case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In making this determination, the court evaluates the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, Petitioner has articulated his claims reasonably well and the issues presented are not complex. Therefore, the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Petitioner's request for an extension of time is granted. Petitioner has thirty days from the date of the entry of this order in which to file objections.
(2) Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
DATED: December 7, 2010