(HC) Benyammi v. Walker, No. 2:2010cv00104 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/9/10, ORDERING that petitioner's 20 motion for an ext of time is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file objections to the 19 F&R's within 30 days from the date of this order. Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. It is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request for a law library access, a word processor and a polygraph exam is DENIED. Matter referred to Judge Burrell. Within 21 days after being served with these F&R's, pltf may file written objections with the court. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
(HC) Benyammi v. Walker Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT BENYAMINI, 11 Petitioner, vs. 12 13 JAMES WALKER, ORDER AND Respondent. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve objections to the 16 17 No. CIV S-10-0104 GEB KJM P November 5, 2010 findings and recommendations. 18 Plaintiff has also asked to court to order the law librarian to grant him additional 19 time in the law library, to direct prison authorities to provide him with a word processor and 20 administer a polygraph test, apparently in connection with a disciplinary action. He also asks 21 for the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 22 23 proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. 24 § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice 25 so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does 26 ///// Dockets.Justia.com 1 not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present 2 time. 3 To the extent petitioner seeks a polygraph examination, access to the law library 4 and the provision of a word processor, he seeks injunctive relief from people who are not parties 5 to this habeas action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not 6 parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 7 100, 112 (1969). 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. To the extent petitioner’s motion docketed as number 20 seeks an extension of 10 time, it is granted; 2. Petitioner shall file objections to the findings and recommendations within 11 12 thirty days from the date of this order; 13 3. Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied. 14 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s requests for a law library 15 access, a word processor and a polygraph examination be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 16 17 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty- 18 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 19 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 20 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 21 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 22 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 DATED: December 9, 2010. 24 25 26 2/mp beny0104.111