Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.
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 is 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, respondent will be directed to file an answer or a motion to dismiss.
Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's September 2, 2009 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is granted;
2. Respondent is directed to file an answer or a motion to dismiss within sixty days from the date of this order. If an answer is filed, respondent shall include with the answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application;
3. Petitioner's traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date respondent's answer is filed; an opposition to a motion to dismiss is due within thirty days of service of the motion to dismiss;
4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order, a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and a copy of the form regarding consent or request for reassignment on Mark Joseph McKeon, Assistant United States Attorney; and
5. Petitioner's September 2, 2009 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 2) is denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...