Howard v. Campbell

Full title: KENNETH WAYNE HOWARD, Petitioner, v. ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 10, 2008

1:06-cv-01818-GSA (HC), (DOCUMENT #30, #31) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008)

Opinion

1:06-cv-01818-GSA (HC), (DOCUMENT #30, #31).

January 10, 2008

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. PETITIONER IS GRANTED (30) DAYS TO FILE TRAVERSE TO RESPONDENT'S ANSWER ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (30) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

GARY AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 21, 2007, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file traverse and a motion for appointment of counsel.

Good cause having been presented and good cause appearing therefor, Petitioner is granted an extension of time to file a traverse.

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958);Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 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), Rules Governing Section 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner is granted (30) thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file a traverse to Respondent's answer.

2. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.