IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 22, 2013
KASH REGISTER, PETITIONER,
S. SALINAS, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Judgment was entered in this case on February 15, 2013, and this matter is currently on petitioner's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 13, 2013, petitioner filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The court file reflects that petitioner paid the filing fee in connection with this habeas action.
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party to a district court action who did not proceed in forma pauperis in the district court but desires to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion in the district court which:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). In addition, Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms requires a prisoner to attach to such a motion a certified prison trust account statement showing all receipts, expenditures and balances during the last six months.
Petitioner has not attached any documentation to his motion supporting his assertion that he is without funds to pay the filing fee in connection with his appeal. Because petitioner has not complied with all of the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will be denied.
Petitioner has also requested the appointment of 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's March 13, 2013 request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 24) is denied; and
2. Petitioner's March 13, 2013 request for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 23) is denied.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.