Morga v. Daniels

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 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