Loughmiller v. Dickinson

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 8/5/09 ORDERING that petitioner's 2 motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED; and petitioner's 3 motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED w/out prejudice to renewal after an answer has been filed. (Yin, K)

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 26 vs. KATHLINE DICKINSON, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Petitioner's petition will be addressed separately. Petitioner has submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing that petitioner is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security therefor. His request will be granted. Petitioner also seeks the appointment of counsel (Doc. 3). 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. 1 RICHARD LEON LOUGHMILLER, Petitioner, ORDER No. CIV S-09-2094-CMK-P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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 26

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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. granted; and 2. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3) is denied without Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is

prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, after an answer to the petitioner has been filed.

DATED: August 5, 2009 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2