Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02196/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02196-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON ALLEN MAGGARD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2196 GEB KJM P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al., 

Respondents. 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. 

On July 10, 2006, petitioner filed an untimely reply to respondent’s opposition to

petitioner’s motion to stay the proceedings. Local Rule 78-230 (m). The court has considered

petitioner’s claim that he mailed his exhaustion petition to the wrong address, but does not find it

persuasive. First, petitioner has not supported his reply with the various exhibits he purports to

rely on to support his claim of inadvertent, rather than intentional, delay. Moreover, although he

argues that his appellate attorney refused contact with him after filing a petition for review that 

Case 2:04-cv-02196-GEB -KJM Document 28 Filed 07/27/06 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

did not include the omitted issues, he does not explain why he did not attempt earlier to raise the

issues he then realized had been omitted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s July 10, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without

prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; and

2. Petitioner’s July 10, 2006 late reply to respondent’s opposition does not change

the court’s findings and recommendations issued July 10, 2006. An additional ten days from the

filed date of this order will be provided for the filing of objections as provided in those findings,

after which the findings will be referred to the district judge assigned to this case. 

DATED: July 26, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp; magg2196.110

Case 2:04-cv-02196-GEB -KJM Document 28 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2