From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chatman v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2008
No. CIV S-08-0341 GEB JFM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-0341 GEB JFM P.

February 22, 2008


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file a response to petitioner's application.

In addition, petitioner has 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 at the present time.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner's application within thirty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

2. Petitioner's reply, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of an answer;

3. If the response to petitioner's application is a motion, petitioner's opposition or statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of the motion, and respondent's reply, if any, shall be filed within fifteen days thereafter; and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

5. Petitioner's February 14, 2008 request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.


Summaries of

Chatman v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2008
No. CIV S-08-0341 GEB JFM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2008)
Case details for

Chatman v. Sisto

Case Details

Full title:WALDEN CHATMAN, Petitioner, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 22, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-08-0341 GEB JFM P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2008)