Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00545/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00545-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTIAGO JIMMY CRUZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-0545 FCD DAD P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, 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 August 5, 2005, this court issued findings and

recommendations which recommended that petitioner’s application be denied. All parties were

advised that objections, if any, to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty

days. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Accordingly, on

September 21, 2005, judgment was issued by the district court and this case was closed. 

On October 17, 2005, petitioner filed a document entitled “Objections to the

Findings and Recommendations of the Court Order.” Therein, petitioner explains that he was

unable to file objections to the findings and recommendations because he was the victim of a

battery and was subsequently transferred among several prisons. Although petitioner does not

articulate any objections to the findings and recommendations, he requests the appointment of

Case 2:02-cv-00545-FCD-DAD Document 36 Filed 11/02/05 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

2

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. 

The court will construe petitioner’s filing as a request for extension of time to file

a notice of appeal. This request will be granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s October 17, 2005 request for appointment of counsel is denied;

and 

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a

notice of appeal. 

 DATED: November 1, 2005.

DAD:8:cruz545.ext

Case 2:02-cv-00545-FCD-DAD Document 36 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2