The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, presently housed at Coalinga State Hospital, and proceeding without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.*fn1
Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
In the petition, petitioner contends, inter alia, that the respondent denied petitioner his due process rights under Valdivia v. Wilson, No. 2:94-cv-0671 LKK (E.D. Cal. filed May 2, 1994),*fn2 during a series of parole revocation proceedings. (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) During the alleged unlawful continued confinement, petitioner was committed to Coalinga State Hospital as a sexually violent predator. (Dkt. No. 1 at 10.)
On February 8, 2013, petitioner filed a motion to expedite the instant petition because it involves an allegedly unlawful parole violation, and because in 2008, petitioner's cardiologist allegedly informed petitioner that due to his poor heart condition, petitioner only had two to three years left to live. (Dkt. No. 10 at 2.) Petitioner included a release to enable the court to obtain medical records from his cardiologist to substantiate his claim.*fn3 However, petitioner is advised that it is petitioner's obligation to support his claims; the court is not authorized to obtain records on behalf of parties. While the court appreciates petitioner's desire to expedite this case, it takes time for the parties to obtain documents to present the court with a complete record. Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice.
On February 4, 2013, petitioner filed a motion for a Valdivia parole revocation hearing. (Dkt. No. 6 at 1.) Petitioner's motion is based on the merits of his claim. Respondent has not yet been served, and the record is not yet fully developed. Thus, the court is not in a position to rule on the merits of the petition at this time. Petitioner's motion is denied.
Petitioner also sought appointment of counsel. In light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. #2) is granted;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to redact petitioner's social security number from Dkt. No. 10 at 3; 6 at 3;
3. Plaintiff's motions to expedite (dkt. no. 10) and for hearing (dkt. no. 6) are denied;
4. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 6) is granted;
5. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner;
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order on David Porter, ...