Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00039/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00039-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
John Wade Lewis
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WADE LEWIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00039 SMS HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

COUNSEL

[Doc. #25]

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME 

[Doc. #26]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 23, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the petition. Judgment was entered

on the same date. 

On April 26, 2007, Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time in which to file a notice

of appeal/certificate of appealability to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pursuant to Rule

4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the notice of appeal “must be filed with the

district court within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.” Under Rule

4(a)(5)(A), the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal “if the party so moves no

later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires” and the “party shows excusable

neglect or good cause.” Petitioner’s request is late and he has not demonstrated good cause or

excusable neglect. 

Case 1:06-cv-00039-SMS Document 27 Filed 05/07/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Also on April 26, 2007, Petitioner filed a 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, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. th

Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § th

3006A 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 would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

time. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is DENIED; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00039-SMS Document 27 Filed 05/07/07 Page 2 of 2