IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 9, 2012
MICHAEL STEPHEN MATLOCK,
MIKE MARTEL, ET AL., 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 apparently challenging the denial of parole in July 2009. This matter is back before ths court following a March 21, 2012, order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals directing consideration of petitioner's "claim challenging his conviction and sentence on the basis of exculpatory evidence newly discovered during [petitioner's] parole proceedings." Pending before the court are: (1) petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 30); and (2) petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 40).
Because petitioner was granted in forma pauperis status on December 30, 2010, the current motion will be denied as unnecessary.
Turning to petitioner's motion for the appointment 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 40) is denied without prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, after a response to the petition has been filed; and
2. Petitioner's motion for in forma pauperis status (Doc. 39) is denied as unnecessary.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.