(HC) Wilburn v. Rowe

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRANCE LAMAR WILBURN, No. 2:24-cv-0500 WBS AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JAMAL ROWE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On June 16, 2025, the undersigned recommended that petitioner’s application for habeas 18 corpus relief be denied. ECF. No. 27. Petitioner was given twenty-one days to file any 19 objections to the findings and recommendations. Id. at 22. Pending before the court is 20 petitioner’s third motion for appointment of counsel, which also seeks a sixty day stay of 21 proceedings to allow him to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations. ECF 22 No. 28. 23 Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel on grounds that “the issues in this case are 24 particularly complex,” and that he needs counsel to pursue his discovery rights and to proceed 25 with an evidentiary hearing on the issue concerning his denied request to augment the record on 26 appeal. Id. at 1-2. Petitioner’s third request for appointment of counsel will be denied. 27 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 28 See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 1 | authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so 2 || require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Once again, the court does not find 3 || that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 4 Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings for a period of sixty days, to and including 5 || September 1, 2025, is construed as a motion for an extension of time to file objections and will be 6 || granted. Good cause appearing, petitioner will have until September 1, 2025, to file his 7 || objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. No further extensions will 8 | be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 28) is 10 | GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows. 11 1. Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings is construed as a motion for an extension of 12 || time to file objections and is granted. Petitioner has until September 1, 2025, to file objections to 13 | the magistrate judge’s June 16, 2025, findings and recommendations. 14 2. The request for appointment of counsel is denied. 15 || DATED: July 10, 2025 ~ 16 Chee ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28