Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00685/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00685-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gordon Andrew Douglas
Petitioner
Greg Lewis
Respondent

Document Text:

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GORDON ANDREW DOUGLAS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

GREG LEWIS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:13-cv-685-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On April 8, 2013, petitioner filed a document styled as a “motion to continue to proceed in 

forma pauperis and appointment of counsel.” ECF No. 2. 

With regard to petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, petitioner has not filed 

the appropriate in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1914(a); 1915(a). While petitioner seeks to continue the in forma pauperis status he was 

granted in his 1997 petition (see Civ. No. S-97-775 KJM-JFM P), this court is unable to grant 

petitioner’s request by referring to an affidavit filed in a separate action. Furthermore, that 

application was submitted over 13 years ago and the information contained therein is not current. 

Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to either submit the appropriate affidavit in support of 

a request to proceed in forma pauperis or submit the appropriate filing fee. 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-KJM-EFB Document 11 Filed 01/16/14 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 

27 

28 

2

With regard to petitioner’s request for 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. 

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. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, an affidavit in 

support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee; petitioner’s 

failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed; 

 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis 

form used by this district; 

 3. Petitioner’s April 8, 2013 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2) is denied 

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

 4. Upon the filing of a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis or payment of the 

filing fee, the court will screen the petition pursuant to the district judge’s January 8, 2014 order. 

Dated: January 15, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-KJM-EFB Document 11 Filed 01/16/14 Page 2 of 2