Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01442/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01442-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARVIND VYAS GOPAL,

Petitioner,

vs.

D.K. SISTO, et al.

Respondents.

 /

1:07-cv-01442 LJO GSA HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(DOCUMENT #2)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #3)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of petitioner's

prison trust account statement. Examination of these documents reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right

to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 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), Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of

Case 1:07-cv-01442-IEG-AJB Document 10 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 24, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01442-IEG-AJB Document 10 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 2