Pallares

(HC) Omega v. Pallares

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 19, 20222:22-cv-00178California323 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NALANA OMEGA, No. 2:22-cv-0178-KJM-EFB (HC) Petitioner, v. ORDER MICHAEL PALLARES, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action for habeas brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. She requests an extension of time to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 15 & 17. She also requests that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 15. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings “if the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; Rule 8(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The court finds that the interests of justice would not be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. The court will, however, grant petitioner another 30 day extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss (ECF…

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.