Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01361/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01361-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY CHARLES BOWLIN, II,

Petitioner,

v.

C. CHRONES, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1361 LJO DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. 19]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 19, 2007, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. On February 16, 2007,

Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a traverse. The Court granted Petitioner’s

motion on April 3, 2007, and the traverse was due within thirty days from the date of service. 

On April 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion entitled “Notice & Motion for ‘Leave’

Notice & Motion For Appointment of counsel on order to show cause.” (Court Doc. 19.) In his

motion, Petitioner states that he is having difficulty gaining access to the law library. Petitioner

further requests the appointment of counsel. 

The Court construes Petitioner’s motion as a request for an extension of time to file a

traverse. Good cause having been demonstrated, Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time is

GRANTED, and the traverse shall be due within thirty days from the date of service of this order. 

With regard to Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel, there currently exists

Case 1:06-cv-01361-LJO-DLB Document 20 Filed 06/05/07 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

no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze,

258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 th

(8 Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the th

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, petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time is GRANTED; and

2. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 4, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01361-LJO-DLB Document 20 Filed 06/05/07 Page 2 of 2