IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 25, 2009
FLORES CARLOS GALINDO, PETITIONER,
WHITE, WARDEN, RESPONDENTS.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action he has filed using the California Judicial Council form for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He has also submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
It is difficult to decipher the basis of petitioner's claim, though he may be challenging a restitution order or the imposition of an immigration hold or both. It is also impossible to determine whether state remedies have been exhausted.
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. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 7) is granted;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case;
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. What is the nature of petitioner's challenge?
b. Has petitioner exhausted state remedies?
c. If so, does the Federal Defender's Office contemplate filing an amended petition?
d. If an amended petition is contemplated, when will it be filed?
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.