Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01200/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01200-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY P. PUCKETT, No. CIV S-06-1200-FCD-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

T. FELKER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

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 motion to

stay any further proceedings (Doc. 48) filed July 11, 2007. 

Petitioner claims in his motion that his legal materials and other personal items

were lost or destroyed during a prison yard search. He is therefore requesting the court stay all

proceedings in this case until his prison grievance is exhausted. 

Petitioner filed his petition on June 2, 2006. Respondent filed an answer on

October 23, 2006. Petitioner then filed his traverse on December 22, 2006. Petitioner’s request

for an evidentiary hearing has been denied. This case is now submitted on its merits, and is

ready for a decision. Petitioner is not required to file any additional documents in this case. 

Case 2:06-cv-01200-RJB Document 49 Filed 07/26/07 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

2

Therefore, petitioner’s motion to stay this case pending resolution of his grievance concerning

missing documents is denied as unnecessary. 

Petitioner has also requested copies of all filed documents and legal work in this

matter. This request is denied without prejudice to renewal, if necessary, following resolution of

petitioner’s prison grievance. As stated above, it is not necessary for petitioner to submit any

additional documents at this point in the proceedings.

Finally, petitioner has requested appointment of counsel. This request 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). 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. 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. Petitioner’s motion to stay any further proceedings (Doc. 48) is denied;

2. Petitioner’s request for copies of all filed documents is denied without

prejudice; and 

3. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: July 25, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01200-RJB Document 49 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2