Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01761/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01761-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NALESH PRASAD, No. CIV S 07-1761 LKK CMK P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

 

Respondent.

 /

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 application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. 2). Petitioner has not, however, submitted a “. . . certification from the warden or

other appropriate officer of the place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities

that the petitioner has in any account in the institution” as required by Rule 3(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to submit the

required certification or the appropriate filing fee. Petitioner is warned that failure to comply

with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Case 2:07-cv-01761-LKK -CMK Document 8 Filed 09/27/07 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

2

Also pending before the court is petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel

(Doc. 3). 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) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 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. 

Finally, addressing the petition, “[a] petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name

the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v.

California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a) of the Federal

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Here, petitioner does not name the prison warden but

names only the “Attorney General for the State of California.” Because petitioner has not named

the appropriate state officer, the petition must be dismissed with leave to amend to name the

correct respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with

this order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 11-110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 30 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall submit a

certification as required by Rule 3(a)(2), or the appropriate filing fee;

2. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3) is denied;

3. Petitioner’s petition (Doc 1) is dismissed with leave to amend;

4. Petitioner shall file an amended petition on the form employed by this

court, and which names the proper respondent and states all claims and requests for relief, within

30 days of the date of this order;

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form

habeas corpus application; and

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01761-LKK -CMK Document 8 Filed 09/27/07 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

3

6. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to send petitioner a copy of the

in forma pauperis form used by this district.

DATED: September 26, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01761-LKK -CMK Document 8 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 3