From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barajas v. Stokes

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2006
CV F 05-1646 REC DLB HC, [Doc. 2] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2006)

Opinion

CV F 05-1646 REC DLB HC, [Doc. 2].

February 22, 2006


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS


Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner filed the instant petition on December 30, 2005. On the same date, Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 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), Rules Governing Section 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, petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

II. In Forma Pauperis Status

On January 6, 2006, Petitioner submitted a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the proceeding six month period. Petitioner did not, however, submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner the opportunity to submit the completed application.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED;
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner an application to proceed in forma pauperis; and
3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the proper form or pay the $5.00 filing fee.

Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Barajas v. Stokes

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2006
CV F 05-1646 REC DLB HC, [Doc. 2] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2006)
Case details for

Barajas v. Stokes

Case Details

Full title:SAMUAL BARAJAS, Petitioner, v. J.D. STOKES, WARDEN, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 22, 2006

Citations

CV F 05-1646 REC DLB HC, [Doc. 2] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2006)