SAUNDRA ARMSTRONG, District Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court directed Respondent to file an answer to the petition. This Order addresses miscellaneous motions which are pending in this habeas action.
I. Respondent's Motion for an Extension of Time to File Answer
Respondent moves for an extension of time to file an answer (docket no. 23). The Court has already granted Respondent's three previous requests for an extension of time. Petitioner has opposed Respondent's requests. Accordingly, Respondent's request for an extension of time is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The time in which Respondent may file an answer will not be extended for the requested fifty-nine days, however, the Court finds that a brief extension is appropriate. Accordingly, the parties shall abide by the scheduling order outlined below.
II. Petitioner's Pending Motions
Before the Court is Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 12), his motion for bail pending determination of habeas corpus (docket no. 16) and his motion to grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (docket no. 21).
A. Request for Appointment of Counsel
This is Petitioner's second request for appointment of counsel as his previous request was denied by the Court. The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to obtain representation." Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations, see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996 (1966), and whenever an evidentiary hearing is required, see Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). The Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. The Court notes that Petitioner has presented his claims adequately in the petition, and no evidentiary hearing appears necessary. Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel, and Petitioner's second request is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court's sua sponte reconsideration should the Court find an evidentiary hearing necessary following consideration of the merits of Petitioner's claims.
B. Request for the Court to Release Petitioner on Bail and to Grant Habeas Relief
Petitioner requests an Order from this Court releasing him on bail pending a decision on the petition or an Order granting his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Bail pending decision is reserved for extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success. Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318, 318-9 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, Petitioner has not demonstrated, or even alleged, sufficiently extraordinary circumstances to require bail pending a decision, premature habeas relief, or an Order granting his petition. Accordingly, Petitioner's requests for the Court to issue an Order releasing Petitioner on bail or an Order granting his petition for writ of habeas corpus are DENIED.
CONCLUSION
1. Respondent's request for a fourth extension of time to file an answer (docket no. 23) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The answer is due on April 14, 2008. Petitioner's traverse is due thirty (30) days after his receipt of the answer. Should Petitioner fail to file a traverse, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision thirty (30) days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent's answer. No further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent exigent circumstances.
2. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 12), his motion for bail pending determination of habeas corpus (docket no. 16) and his motion to grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (docket no. 21) are DENIED.
3. This Order terminates Docket nos. 12, 16, 21 and 23.
IT IS SO ORDERED.