(HC)Casarez v. Yolo County Superior Court et al Doc.

Case 2:07-cv-02541-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 12/03/2007 Page 1 of 2

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RICHARD CESAREZ, No. CIV S-07-2541-FCD-CMK-P

12 Petitioner,

13 vs. ORDER

14 YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
/
17

18 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas

19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s request for leave to

20 proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4). Also before the court is petitioner’s motion for appointment

21 of counsel (Doc. 3). Petitioner’s petition will be addressed separately.

22 Petitioner has submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing

23 that petitioner is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security therefor. Request for leave to

24 proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

25 ///

26 ///

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 2:07-cv-02541-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 12/03/2007 Page 2 of 2

1 As to petitioner’s request for counsel, there currently exists no absolute right to

2 appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th

3 Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of

4 the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

5 In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the

6 appointment of counsel at the present time.

7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8 1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) is

9 granted; and

10 2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3) is denied.

11

12 DATED: November 30, 2007

13 ______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26