Pfeiffer

(HC) Washington v. Pfeiffer

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 2, 20191:18-cv-00368California540 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS LAVALE WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:18-cv-00368-DAD-SKO (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

v. MOTION FOR COPIES [Doc. 32] C. PFEIFFER, Warden,

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF

Respondent. TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS

16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 11, 2019, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition in this action. (Doc. 24.) After conducting a preliminary review of the petition, on June 20, 2019, the Court issued Findings and Recommendation to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 31.) Petitioner was granted thirty (30) days to file objections. On June 26, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 32.) He also requested a copy of the First Amended Petition. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.