Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01440/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01440-0/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

STEPHEN KRAIG CANTRELL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1440 GEB KJM P

vs.

M.S. EVANS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis and

a request for the appointment of counsel. 

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

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

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 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01440-MMM Document 7 Filed 10/09/07 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

not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

time. 

On August 6, 2007, petitioner filed a motion to file an amended petition, but did

not attach a copy of the proposed amended petition. He will be given thirty days from the date

of this order to file his proposed amended petition.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Petitioner’s July 19, 2007 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice; and

3. Petitioner’s August 6, 2007 motion to amend his petition is denied without

prejudice to his filing a motion together with the proposed amended petition within thirty days of

the date of this order. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to comply with this order will result in

a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

DATED: October 9, 2007. 

2

cant1440.amd

Case 2:07-cv-01440-MMM Document 7 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2