Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01539-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN MACK,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-1539 GEB JFM P

vs.

G. M. GALAZA, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 17, 2006, this court issued findings and

recommendations which recommended that petitioner’s application be denied. Subsequently,

petitioner filed two requests for extension of time to file objections to the findings and

recommendations and one request for the appointment of counsel. All of those requests were

denied. On August 7, 2006, petitioner filed another request for the appointment of counsel.

Attached to petitioner’s request is a February 2, 2006, letter on the letterhead of the Division of

Adult Institutions at California State Prison, Corcoran, from G. Goddard, Ph.D., who is

designated as “principal.” The letter is addressed to “Federal, State and Local Courts” and it

states that because of extensive remodeling and modifications to the law library at Corcoran,

there has been “no access” to the libraries by inmates who have been identified as priority legal

users, and that the “paging” system provided to the inmates “does not fully meet the entire case

research needs of impacted inmates.” Petitioner does not explain whether the library at Corcoran

Case 2:02-cv-01539-GEB -JFM Document 50 Filed 08/25/06 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

is still undergoing remodeling or how the situation at the law library has impacted his ability to

file objections to the findings and recommendations.

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. The court will, however, grant petitioner another extension of time to file objections to the

findings and recommendations. If petitioner is unable to meet the deadline set by this order, he

must explain in detail why he needs further time to file objections, including whether the law

library at Corcoran prison is still closed. Unexplained letters and vague assertions will not be

sufficient to warrant any further extensions of time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s August 7, 2006, request for appointment of counsel is denied; and

2. Petitioner shall file and serve objections to the May 17, 2006, findings and

recommendations on or before October 15, 2006. 

DATED: August 25, 2006.

8:mack1539.aty

Case 2:02-cv-01539-GEB -JFM Document 50 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2