IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 11, 2011
PHILLIP ARTHUR THOMPSON,
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, RESPONDENTS.
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 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5). However, the court has also received the full filing fee from petitioner, rendering his motion unnecessary.
Petitioner also seeks the appointment of counsel (Doc. 6). 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) is denied as unnecessary; and
2. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 6) is denied without prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, after a response to the petition has been filed.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.