Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01563-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
T. Schwartz
Respondent
James R. Walker
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

 Court records reflect that petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee for this action shortly after

1

it was filed.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES R. WALKER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1563 GEB PAN P

vs.

T. SCHWARTZ,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 22, 2005, petitioner filed a motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals 1

that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

 On March 6, 2006, petitioner filed a document styled “Motion to Reconsider

Motion for the Appointment of Counsel . . . “ By this motion, petitioner again seeks 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

Case 2:05-cv-01563-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 04/26/06 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

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. Petitioner’s motion will therefore be denied.

Finally, on March 6, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file

an amended petition and a motion for leave to file an amended petition. The latter motion is not

accompanied by a proposed amended petition. The court construes petitioner’s motion for

extension of time as a motion to stay these proceedings pending preparation of a motion to

amend his petition and a proposed amended petition. So construed, the court finds no basis in

the record to stay this action at this time. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time will therefore

be denied.

Without a proposed amended petition, the court is unable to determine whether

petitioner should be granted leave to amend his petition. The motion to amend will therefore be

denied without prejudice. 

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

1. Petitioner November 22, 2005 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted;

2. Petitioner’s March 6, 2006 motion for reconsideration of appointment of

counsel is denied;

3. Petitioner’s March 6, 2006 motion for an extension of time to file an amended

petition is construed as a motion to stay these proceedings and, so construed, is denied; and

4. Petitioner’s March 6, 2006 motion to amend is denied without prejudice.

DATED: April 24, 2006.

12;walk1563.o

Case 2:05-cv-01563-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 2