(HC) Scott v. Fox

Opinion

MICHAEL LADONTE SCOTT, No. 2:18-cv-2687 TLN KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER Respondent. Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. 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). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. On April 13, 2020, petitioner filed a request to expedite these proceedings, and inquired whether the court has received his traverse. Petitioner is advised that his traverse was filed on January 6, 2020, and his case is now submitted for decision. Petitioner asks the court to expedite these proceedings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the undersigned has reviewed 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

noted that judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, and this court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. Thus, plaintiffs motion will be denied insofar as he seeks to impose different time frames than this court is able to provide. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 69) is denied without prejudice; and 2. Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 77) is denied. Dated: April 21, 2020 Foci) Aharon sos7 1040) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE