Opinion
Case No. 09-CV-12201.
September 30, 2011
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL AND DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL
Petitioner Kassem Mohammad Salamey has appealed the Court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. Before the Court is Petitioner's combined motion for appointment of appellate counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Although Petitioner retained counsel for the District Court proceedings, he alleges that his family has exhausted its resources and cannot afford to retain counsel for his appeal. He also alleges that he has no assets and is unable to pay the appellate filing fee.
Petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because an appeal could be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The request for appointment of counsel, however, is denied because the filing of a notice of appeal generally "confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) ( per curiam)). Petitioner has already filed a notice of appeal. Consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction to address his request for appointment of counsel. Murray v. Artl, 189 F. App'x 501, 504 (7th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly,
Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 21, filed September 9, 2011) is granted in part and denied in part. The request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted, but the request for appointment of counsel is denied.