Ye v. Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Full title: LINNA YE, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 2, 2015

2:13-cv-0972 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2015)

Opinion

LINNA YE, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Respondent. No. 2:13-cv-0972 MCE CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. July 2, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner has requested a sixty-day extension of time to file objections to the June 11, 2015 findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, this request will be granted.

         Petitioner also renews her request for appointment of counsel. (See ECF No. 5.) 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.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Petitioner's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 20) is granted;

         2. Petitioner is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the June 11, 2015 findings and recommendations; and

         3. Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 21) is denied.