(HC) Wilburn v. Macomber

Opinion

TERRENCE LAMAR WILBURN, No. 2:24-cv-0500 WBS AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER Respondent. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel and more time to research claim 6 (improper sentencing) because it is “overly complex.” ECF No. 25. 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 because the petition is fully briefed. The court will therefore deny petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel. To the extent petitioner seeks an extension of time to research claim 6 and file a supplemental traverse, the court will deny this request. Petitioner has already filed a traverse in this case and the time for filing a traverse has long since passed. Petitioner has not provided any explanation for why he failed to seek an extension of time prior to the deadline. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 25) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. The petition is fully briefed and will be ruled on in due course. DATED: March 21, 2025 ~ Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]