(HC) Williams v. Martel ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID EARL WILLIAMS, No. 2:18-cv-02224 KJM DB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 MICHAEL MARTEL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Presently before the court is petitioner’s request for 19 reconsideration, motion to appoint counsel, and motion for an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 43.) 20 For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny the request for reconsideration as moot, and 21 deny the motions for evidentiary hearing and to appoint counsel without prejudice. 22 Petitioner seeks reconsideration of a prior order denying his request for additional time 23 and requests that his objections (ECF No. 42) be accepted as timely filed. (ECF No. 43 at 1.) In 24 light of the March 25, 2022, order granting petitioner’s requests for additional time to file 25 objections (ECF No. 41), the court will deny petitioner’s request for reconsideration as moot. 26 Petitioner’s objections shall be deemed timely filed. 27 Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. 28 (ECF No. 43 at 1.) There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas een EE II IRE SII EE 1 || proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 2 || 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so 3 || require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 4 In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by 5 | the appointment of counsel at the present time. The undersigned recommended that the petition 6 | be denied, and the finding and recommendations are pending before the assigned United States 7 | District Court. Accordingly, the court will deny petitioner’s requests for the appointment of 8 || counsel and for an evidentiary hearing without prejudice. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Petitioner’s request for reconsideration (ECF No. 43) is denied as moot; 11 2. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 43) is denied without 12 prejudice; and 13 3. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 43) is denied without 14 prejudice. 15 || Dated: April 12, 2022 16 17 18 BORAH BARNES 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 DADE Prisoner Inbox/Habeas/R/will2224.mta.ev_hrg 25 26 27 28