From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roark v. Marshall

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 5, 2008
No. CIV S-07-1338 LKK DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 5, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-1338 LKK DAD P.

May 5, 2008


ORDER


Petitioner, a former state prisoner currently on parole, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 3, 2008, the court ordered respondents to file a response to the petition. Several requests are pending before the court.

First, petitioner has filed a request for 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, respondents have filed a motion for a second extension of time to file a response to petitioner's petition. Good cause appearing, the court will grant respondents thirty days from the date of this order to file a response to petitioner's petition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's April 28, 2008 request for appointment of counsel is denied;

2. Respondents' May 1, 2008 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

3. Respondents are granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a response to petitioner's petition.


Summaries of

Roark v. Marshall

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 5, 2008
No. CIV S-07-1338 LKK DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 5, 2008)
Case details for

Roark v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT L. ROARK, Petitioner, v. JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 5, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-07-1338 LKK DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 5, 2008)