Lizarraga

(HC) Williams v. Lizarraga

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 20201:18-cv-00748California568 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LAWRENCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00748-AWI-JDP Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

v. ECF No. 33 JOE LIZARRAGA,

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

Respondent. FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ECF No. 34 17 Petitioner Lawrence Williams, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On July 8, 2020, petitioner moved for a 60- day extension of time to file his traverse. ECF No. 33. For good cause shown, petitioner’s motion is granted. His traverse is now due on September 8, 2020. Additionally, petitioner moved for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 34. A petitioner in a habeas proceeding does not have an absolute right to counsel. See Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). There are three specific circumstances in which appointment of counsel is required in habeas…

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.