Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00109-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NGOC NGUYEN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0109 FCD KJM P

vs.

M. KRAMER, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Since petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed

violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be directed to file a response to

petitioner’s habeas petition.

Petitioner has also requested 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). 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. 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00109-FVS Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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. 

On January 17, 2007, petitioner filed a motion asking that the court “waive

exhaustion of state remedies for claims challenging the September 1, 2005 parole denial.” The

court cannot “waive” defenses respondents may have. The court will address the issue of

exhaustion of state court remedies if respondents file a motion to dismiss on those grounds. 

Finally, petitioner asks that the court consolidate this action with another habeas

action filed by petitioner. However, the court has checked the court’s docket and it does not

appear that petitioner has filed another habeas action. His request will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s January 17, 2007 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted.

2. Petitioner’s January 17, 2007 motion for appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

3. Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioner’s habeas petition

within sixty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An

answer shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues

presented in the petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

4. If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply, if any,

shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer.

5. If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after

service of the motion, and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fifteen days

thereafter.

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00109-FVS Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

6. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Michael Patrick Farrell, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General.

7. Petitioner’s January 17, 2007 “Motion to waive exhaustion of state remedies

for claims challenging the September 1, 2005 parole denial” is denied.

8. Petitioner’s January 17, 2007 motion for “joinder / consolidation” is denied.

DATED: April 16, 2007. 

1/mp

nguy0109.100(1.17.07)

Case 2:07-cv-00109-FVS Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 3