From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ROBINSON v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 24, 2011
No. CIV-S-10-2089 LKK CMK (TEMP) P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV-S-10-2089 LKK CMK (TEMP) P.

February 24, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file a response to respondent's December 7, 2010, answer to the petition. Good cause appearing, this request will be granted.

In addition, 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 18) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings;

2. Petitioner's request for an extension of time (Docket No. 18) is granted; and

3 Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and serve a response to the answer to the petition.

DATED: February 24, 2011


Summaries of

ROBINSON v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 24, 2011
No. CIV-S-10-2089 LKK CMK (TEMP) P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011)
Case details for

ROBINSON v. CATE

Case Details

Full title:CLARK ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. MATHEW CATE, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2011

Citations

No. CIV-S-10-2089 LKK CMK (TEMP) P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011)