IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 12, 2013
SANSON O.C. FRAZIER,
M.D. BITER, 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.
Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 23). Because in forma pauperis status was granted on February 13, 2012, the current motion is denied as unnecessary.
Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel (Doc. 22). 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. Further requests for the appointment of counsel will not be considered.
The merits of petitioner's petition, as well as petitioner's request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing, shall be addressed separately.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 23) is denied as unnecessary; and
2. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 22) is denied.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.