Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00716/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00716-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael S. Evans
Respondent
Michael E. Van Sickel
Petitioner

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

 Petitioner is advised that the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the 1

granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies

the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to

consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,

276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL E. VAN SICKEL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-0716 FCD DAD P 

vs.

MICHAEL S. EVANS,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

This action was transferred to this court from the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California. Petitioner, a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, has

filed a letter in which he contends that eight years after his conviction, he now has discovered

information that would provide grounds for a new trial. Petitioner’s letter does not provide the

information that is required for a habeas petition under Rules 2 of the Rules Governing § 2254

Cases. Therefore, the court will order petitioner to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1

using the court’s form petition. Although petitioner has filed an application requesting leave to

/////

Case 2:08-cv-00716-FCD-DAD Document 5 Filed 04/23/08 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

proceed in forma pauperis, the court will not issue a ruling on petitioner’s application until he has

filed a proper habeas petition.

Petitioner has also filed a 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 cannot make such a determination when

petitioner has not filed a proper habeas petition. Therefore, petitioner’s request will be denied

without prejudice.

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

1. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

petition for writ of habeas corpus that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the petition must bear the

docket number assigned this case; and petitioner must file an original and two copies of the

petition. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

matter be dismissed;

2. Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel, filed in this court on April

4, 2008, is denied without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form for filing

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner.

DATED: April 22, 2008.

DAD:4

vans0716.nopet

Case 2:08-cv-00716-FCD-DAD Document 5 Filed 04/23/08 Page 2 of 2