Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01361/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01361-4/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

27

28

 Petitioner filed his first request for an extension of time on February 16, 2007, which was granted on 1

April 3, 2007. (Court Docs. 16, 18.) Petitioner filed his second request for an extension of time on April 19, 2007,

which was granted on June 5, 2007. (Court Docs. 19, 20.) 

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 THIRD

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE TRAVERSE AND DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. 21]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 28, 2006, and

an amended petition on November 9, 2006. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on

January 19, 2007. Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s third motion for an extension of

time to file a traverse, along with a request for the appointment of counsel. (Court Doc. 21.) 

1

Good cause having been presented, Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a

traverse 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

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

Case 1:06-cv-01361-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 09/24/07 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

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. As Petitioner was previously advised, 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 motion for an extension of time is GRANTED, and shall be filed within

thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 24, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01361-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 2