Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01101/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01101-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Petitioner attaches a copy of a letter issued by G. Goddard, Ph.D on February 2, 2006, at Corcoran State Prison,

indicating that the law library at that facility is undergoing “extensive remodeling and modifications to accommodate the

installation of an electronic law library retrieval system.” (Court Doc. 16, Attachment.) Mr. Goddard indicates that there

has been no access to the libraries by inmates who have been identified as Priority Legal Users. (Id.) 

The Court recognizes this unusual circumstance and that Petitioner is requesting a three to four month extension of

time; however, the Court is initially granting Petitioner sixty days as it is unclear at what point the facility will be accessible.

If the sixty day period proves to be an insufficient the amount of time, Petitioner must re-submit further evidence of the lack

of access to the prison law library during that time frame. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR GARZA, 

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

 v. )

)

WARDEN EVANS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-01101-AWI-DLB-HC 

 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION 

TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND DENYING APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #16)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. On February 22, 2006, petitioner filed a motion to extend time to file an opposition to

defendants' motion to dismiss. Good cause having been presented to the court and GOOD CAUSE

APPEARING THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner is granted sixty (60) days from

the date of service of this order in which to file his opposition.1

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. 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

Case 1:05-cv-01101-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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 that petitioner's

request for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 8, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01101-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 2