From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heredia v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 13, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0693-GEB-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-0693-GEB-CMK-P.

May 13, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are petitioner's: (1) motion for an extension of time to file a traverse (Doc. 25); and (2) motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 26).

Petitioner seeks a 45-day extension of time to file a traverse. Good cause appearing therefor, the request is granted. Petitioner may file a traverse within 45 days of the date of this order.

Petitioner also seeks 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. Further requests for the appointment of counsel will not be considered.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time (Doc. 25) to file a traverse is granted;

2. Petitioner's traverse is due within 45 days of the date of this order; and

3. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 26) is denied.

DATED: May 12, 2011


Summaries of

Heredia v. Martel

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 13, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0693-GEB-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2011)
Case details for

Heredia v. Martel

Case Details

Full title:AARON AUGUSTINE HEREDIA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, Respondent

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

Date published: May 13, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-0693-GEB-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2011)