Kane v. Steve Moore

Filing 21

ORDER denying 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel; 20 Motion for Certificate of Appealability and 20 Motion proceed in forma pauperis signed by District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on 8/2/10. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(HC) Kane v. Steve Moore Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proceed in forma pauperis is moot. Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel is denied. 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). The court may appoint counsel at any stage 1 STEVEN MOORE, et al., Respondent. _______________________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MORGAN JAMES KANE, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:08-cv-1268 BJR ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY_________________ This matter comes before the court on the Petitioner's June 23, 2010 motion in which he seeks the following relief: (1) to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) for the appointment of legal counsel; and (3) in the event the court denies his request for a writ of habeas corpus, that the court issue a certification of appealability. Petitioner is a California state prisoner who filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The matter was transferred to this court on June 18, 2010. Petitioner paid the filing fee for this action on June 4, 2008. Therefore, his request to Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the proceeding "if the interests of justice so require." See 18 U.S.C. 3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceeding. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal "the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court." See Wilson v. Bellequ, 554 F.3d 816, 824 (9th Cir. 2009). This court has not issued a final ruling on the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is not warranted and will not be issued at this time. Petitioner may renew his request for a certificate in the event his petition is denied. Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. His request for the appointment of legal counsel is DENIED without prejudice. His request for a certificated of appealability is DENIED. DATED this 2nd day of August, 2010. /s/ Barbara Jacobs Rothstein Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?