Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nesbitt v. Jacquez

October 30, 2009

ROBERT HAYDEN NESBITT, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff immediately subsequently filed an amended petition which supersedes the original petition.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be served with the amended petition, but shall not file a response at the present time.

In light of the length of petitioner's sentence, 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 October 9, 2009 request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is granted;

2. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order on Carolyn Wiggin, Assistant Federal Defender.

4. Within thirty days of this order, the parties shall file a joint scheduling statement which addresses the timing and order of the following matters:

a. The number of days petitioner's counsel estimates it will take to file either:

1. A statement indicating petitioner will stand on the existing amended petition, filed on October 15, 2009 (docket # 4) and supplemental memorandum of points and authorities, if any;

2. A second amended petition which will proceed on exhausted claims only; or

3. A second amended petition which identifies both exhausted and unexhausted claims, demonstrates good cause for having failed to exhaust state court remedies as to any claims,*fn1 and any intention to pursue unexhausted claims, after which the court may recommend that the proceedings be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.