(HC) Jackline v. Sacramento County Main Jail

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DUDLEY W. JACKLINE, No. 2:19-cv-1046 KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner is proceeding without counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 19, 2019, the undersigned dismissed the petition with thirty days to file an amended petition. (ECF No. 8.) Thirty days passed, and petitioner did not file an amended petition. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed.

21 On July 22, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for 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.

27 //// //// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9) is denied; 3 2. The Clerk of the Court shall appoint a district judge to this action; and 4 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, | he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to || which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the | applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 13 | 2253(c)(3). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may | waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 15 1991).

16 | Dated: August 30, 2019 " Aectl Aharon 18 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |] jack1046.110