Brinkley v. Curry

Full title: FREDERICK BRINKLEY, Petitioner, v. BEN CURRY, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 17, 2007

No. CIV S-07-1482 WBS KJM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-1482 WBS KJM P.

December 17, 2007

ORDER

KIMBERLY MUELLER, 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 response to the order to show cause filed on November 16, 2007.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's December 10, 2007 motion for an extension of time is granted.

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a response to the order to show cause filed November 16, 2007.

3. Petitioner's December 10, 2007 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.