Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01244/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01244-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner has 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 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 

1984). However, 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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 

require the appointment of counsel at the present time.

However, in view of Petitioner’s recent notice of change of address (doc. 39, filed 

February 12, 2014), and considering the imminent due date of any reply that Petitioner 

ERICK D. GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

A. HEDGPETH, et al.,

Respondent.

1:12 -cv-01244-LJO-BAM (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Document #38)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY TO 

RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION

(Documents 33, 36)

Deadline: Thirty (30) days after service

Case 1:12-cv-01244-DAD-SKO Document 40 Filed 02/18/14 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

2

might choose to file in response to Respondent’s opposition to Petitioner’s pending motion 

regarding a stay, the Court on its own motion will grant a thirty-day extension of time to 

Petitioner to file a reply.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment 

of counsel is DENIED.

Petitioner is GRANTED an extension of time to file a reply to Respondent’s 

opposition to Petitioner’s motion regarding a stay until no later than thirty (30) days after 

the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01244-DAD-SKO Document 40 Filed 02/18/14 Page 2 of 2