IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 8, 2010
JIMMY LEWIS, PETITIONER,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has not, however, signed the in forma pauperis application. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to submit a properly completed and signed affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis.
In addition, petitioner has 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." See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 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 February 18, 2010 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied;
2. Petitioner shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, a properly completed affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis; petitioner's failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis form used by this district; and
4. Petitioner's February 18, 2010 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.