(HC) Rosiles v. Pfeiffer ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK RENE ROSILES, No. 2:17-cv-02600 KJM GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 C. PFEIFFER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel based on his mental impairment. ECF 18 No. 45. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 19 See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 20 authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so 21 require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In its August 23, 2019 findings and 22 recommendations, the court determined that petitioner’s allegations failed to demonstrate that his 23 mental impairments were the but-for cause for his delay in filing a timely federal habeas petition. 24 See ECF No. 44. Accordingly, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served 25 here, by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Petitioner has also requested an extension of time to file and serve objections to the 2 pending findings and recommendations. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 45) is denied without 5 prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; 6 2. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time is (ECF No. 46) granted; and 7 2. Petitioner shall file and serve his objections within thirty days from the date of this 8 order. 9 Dated: September 10, 2019 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28