IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 21, 2011
G SWARTHOUT, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) and request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 6). Petitioner's petition is be addressed separately.
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. His motion for appointment of counsel is therefore denied, but without prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, after an answer to the petition has been filed Petitioner is also requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He has, however, also paid the $5.00 filing fee. As such, his request is denied, without prejudice. If at some point in these proceedings, the court finds it appropriate to appoint counsel, the court will re-evaluate his application.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) and for appointment of counsel (Doc. 6) are denied, without prejudice.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.