IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 29, 2009
ALONZO WARREN, PETITIONER,
SUE HUBBARD, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action he has denominated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has also submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which is appropriate in this case.
Examination of the complaint shows, however, that petitioner is challenging the denial of parole, which is appropriately brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Nothing in the current action shows that state remedies have been exhausted, which is a prerequisite to state habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
Resolution of this question is complicated by the fact that petitioner is functionally illiterate, as noted in the portion of parole hearing transcript attached as an exhibit to the action, and by the fact that petitioner is not being well served by the inmate assistance he has received so far.
In light of these factors, the court has determined that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the nature of suit code from prisoner civil rights to habeas corpus general;
2. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;
3. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order on Carolyn Wiggin, Assistant Federal Defender; and
5. The Federal Defender's Office is directed to file a status report within sixty days of the date of this order addressing the following questions:
a. Has petitioner exhausted state remedies?
b. If so, does the Federal Defender's Office contemplate filing an amended petition?
c. If an amended petition is contemplated, when will it be filed?
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.