(HC) Mendoza v. Covello

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSE GUADALUPE MENDOZA, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01521-NONE-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION PATRICK COVELLO, Acting Warden of ) OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS Mule Creek State Prison, 15 ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) 16 Respondent. ) (Doc. 26) ) 17 ) 60-DAY DEADLINE ) 18 ) 19 On June 17, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel and extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 26.) There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 23 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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 require the appointment of counsel at the present time.

26 Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

27 Petitioner also requests to extend time to file objections to the findings and recommendations.

28 (Doc. 26.) Good cause appearing therefore, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to extend time.

1 Petitioner SHALL file objections to the findings and recommendation within 60 days from the date of service of this order.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: June 21, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE