Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01268/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01268-3/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 

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORGAN JAMES KANE, ) 

 Petitioner, ) CASE NO. 2:08-cv-1268 BJR 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

 ) REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

STEVEN MOORE, et al., ) COUNSEL, TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

 Respondent. PAUPERIS, AND FOR A CERTIFICATE 

_______________________ OF APPEALABILITY_________________ 

 This matter comes before the court on the Petitioner’s June 23, 2010 motion in which he 

seeks the following relief: (1) to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) for the appointment of legal 

counsel; and (3) in the event the court denies his request for a writ of habeas corpus, that the 

court issue a certification of appealability. Petitioner is a California state prisoner who filed a pro 

se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California. The matter was transferred to this court on June 18, 

2010. 

 Petitioner paid the filing fee for this action on June 4, 2008. Therefore, his request to 

proceed in forma pauperis is moot. Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel 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). The court may appoint counsel at any stage 

Case 2:08-cv-01268-BJR Document 21 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 

U.S. District Court Judge 

of the proceeding “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 proceeding. 

 A certificate of appealability is required to appeal “the final order in a habeas proceeding 

in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court.” See Wilson v. 

Bellequ, 554 F.3d 816, 824 (9th Cir. 2009). This court has not issued a final ruling on the petition 

for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is not warranted and will not 

be issued at this time. Petitioner may renew his request for a certificate in the event his petition is 

denied. 

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. His request for the appointment of legal counsel 

is DENIED without prejudice. His request for a certificated of appealability is DENIED. 

 DATED this 2nd day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ Barbara Jacobs Rothstein

Case 2:08-cv-01268-BJR Document 21 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2