United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2022

(HC) Marquez-Huazo v. Warden of FCI-Herlong

(HC) Marquez-Huazo v. Warden of FCI-Herlong
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided February 17, 2022
(HC) Marquez-Huazo v. Warden of FCI-Herlong

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GRACIANO MARQUEZ-HUAZO, No. 2:21-cv-1540 KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER UNKNOWN,1 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner, housed at FCI-Herlong. He proceeds pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner requested an extension of time to file a proper response to the court’s January 26, 2022 order to show cause because the prison is on a national lockdown2 and he does not have access to the law library. In addition, he states he did not receive respondent’s motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, the order to show cause is discharged, and petitioner is granted an extension of time in which to file an opposition to respondent’s motion. In an abundance of caution, the clerk is directed to send petitioner a copy of respondent’s motion.

25 1 As noted by respondent, petitioner failed to identify a respondent in both the original petition as well as the amended petition. (ECF No. 11 at 1.)

27 2 The Bureau of Prisons announced to the press that the nationwide lockdown is lifting. Jenkins, Cameron, Nationwide lockdown ending in federal prisons, The Hill, Feb. 8, 2022 (first reported in The Washington Post). ] Petitioner also requested the 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.

5 || 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.

7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The order to show cause (ECF No. 12) is discharged; 9 2. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 13) is granted; 10 3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an || opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11); 12 4. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 14) is denied without || prejudice; and 14 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of respondent’s motion to || dismiss and appendix (ECF No. 11 and 11-1).

16 || Dated: February 17, 2022 Aectl Aharon 18 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /marq1540.136+

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.