Morga v. Daniels

Opinion

1 2 Ramon Morga, Case No. 2:21-cv-01743-APG-BNW 6 Petitioner Vv. Order 7 Charles Daniels, et al., [ECF No. 26] 8 Respondents 9 10 The scheduling order in this habeas case required the petitioner, Ramon Morga, to file his 11 reply to the respondents’ answer by May 1, 2023. ECF No. 25. While Morga failed to meet that 12 deadline, I note that he filed a motion for a continuance that includes a request for me to 13 reconsider my prior decision to deny appointment of counsel. ECF No. 26. I will not change my 14 decision regarding appointment of counsel because Morga has not demonstrated that is entitled 15 to discovery or an evidentiary hearing, or that his right to due process would be violated if he is 16 not appointed counsel. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. 17 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). I will, however, give Morga more time to file his reply. 18 I THEREFORE ORDER that Morga’s “motion for continuance” [ECF No. 26] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Morga’s request for appointment of counsel is 20] denied, but he shall now have until July 5, 2023 to file and serve his reply. 21 Dated: May 4, 2023 22 A _ U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon 23