Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00950/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00950-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW PASQUALE CHAFFER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0950 LKK EFB P

vs.

K. PROSPER, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He paid the filing fee to proceed in this court. On August 18, 2007, this court

granted respondent’s motion to dismiss and judgment was entered. The court granted

petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Petitioner has

filed a notice of appeal, a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a request for the

appointment of counsel.

A habeas petitioner who paid the filing fee in the district court may proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal if he submits an application to the district court demonstrating that he cannot

pay or give security for the fees and costs of appeal, asserting that he may be entitled to redress

and stating the issues he intends to raise on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The court has 

Case 2:06-cv-00950-LKK -EFB Document 35 Filed 01/07/08 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

2

examined petitioner’s application in conjunction with the application for a certificate of

appealability, and finds that petitioner has made the requisite showing. The court now turns to

petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel.

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 appointment counsel at

any stage of the proceedings “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 proceedings. The

request therefore must be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s November 5, 2007, application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal is granted; and

2. Petitioner’s November 5, 2007, motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: January 4, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00950-LKK -EFB Document 35 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 2