(HC) Scott v. Fox ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LADONTE SCOTT, No. 2:18-cv-2687 TLN KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT W. FOX, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Petitioner has requested the appointment 18 of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 19 proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. 20 § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice 21 so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does 22 not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present 23 time. 24 On April 13, 2020, petitioner filed a request to expedite these proceedings, and inquired 25 whether the court has received his traverse. Petitioner is advised that his traverse was filed on 26 January 6, 2020, and his case is now submitted for decision. Petitioner asks the court to expedite 27 these proceedings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the undersigned has reviewed 28 this action and finds no good cause to expedite these proceedings. Additionally, it has often been wOAOe 6. LOU VMEVOT ERINUING MVVUPEIOCTIE PO FOO eter Oy Ove 1 | noted that judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, 2 | and this court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. 3 | Thus, plaintiffs motion will be denied insofar as he seeks to impose different time frames than 4 | this court is able to provide. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 69) is denied without 7 | prejudice; and 8 2. Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 77) is denied. 9 | Dated: April 21, 2020 0 Foci) Aharon sos7 1040) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28