Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05169/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05169-0/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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JOHNSON, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5169 JSW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Docket nos. 3, 4)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Mule

Creek State Prison, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the instant petition on November 24, 2004 in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California. The petition was transferred to this Court on

December 7, 2004. On February 23, 2005, this Court issued an order to show cause why

the petition should not be granted. On June 23, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the

petition and supporting memorandum (docket nos. 8, 9).

On March 28, 2005, Petitioner filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis,

using a form provided by the District Court for the Eastern District of California. On

September 26, 2005, this Court issued a notice informing Petitioner that his in forma

pauperis application was insufficient because he did not submit this Court’s current

application form, a Certificate of Funds in Prisoner’s Account, or a copy of his prisoner

trust account statement. However, based on the information provided by Petitioner in his

March 28, 2005 application, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket no. 3).

Case 3:04-cv-05169-JSW Document 15 Filed 11/15/05 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 2

On March 28, 2005, Petitioner also filed a request for appointment of counsel. The

Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B), a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a

financially eligible habeas petitioner when "the court determines that the interests of

justice so require." However, in this case, no evidentiary hearing appears necessary at

this time, and the Court notes that Petitioner has presented his claims adequately in the

petition. Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at

this time, and Petitioner's request is DENIED without prejudice (docket no. 4).

Petitioner has not filed a traverse in this matter. Petitioner is granted an additional

thirty (30) days from the date of this order by which he may file a traverse. After that

date, the matter will be deemed submitted. The Court will review the merits of the

petition in a separate written order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2005

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05169-JSW Document 15 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2