From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WETMORE v. FINN

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2008
No. CIV S-07-1120 LEW KJM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-1120 LEW KJM P.

February 22, 2008


ORDER


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 requested an extension of time to file and serve a traverse. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (docket no. 13) 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. 13) is granted; and

3. Petitioner is granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to file and serve a traverse.


Summaries of

WETMORE v. FINN

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2008
No. CIV S-07-1120 LEW KJM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2008)
Case details for

WETMORE v. FINN

Case Details

Full title:MORGAN KANE AKA JOHN WETMORE, Petitioner, v. CLAUDE FINN, Warden, et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 22, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-07-1120 LEW KJM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2008)