Morgan v. Knipp

Full title: MATTHEW WILKE MORGAN, Petitioner, v. W. KNIPP, Respondent.

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

Date published: Jan 17, 2012

2:11-cv-1723 JAM JFM (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)

Opinion

MATTHEW WILKE MORGAN, Petitioner, v. W. KNIPP, Respondent. No. 2:11-cv-1723 JAM JFM (HC) United States District Court, E.D. California. January 17, 2012

          ORDER

          JOHN F. MOULDS, District 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 filed his second request for an extension of time to file and serve a traverse pursuant to the court's order of December 16, 2011. Good cause appearing, the motion will be granted. No further extensions of time will be granted.

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Petitioner's January 5, 2012 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

         2. Petitioner's January 5, 2012 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

         3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and serve a traverse. No further extensions of time will be granted.