Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04579/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04579-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steve Crump
Petitioner
John Soto
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

No. C 15-4579 RS (PR)

ORDER DENYING IFP APPLICATION

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 11/10/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

STEVE CRUMP,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN SOTO,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 15-4579 RS (PR)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS;

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER

TO PAY THE FILING FEE BY

DECEMBER 21, 2015

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se

state prisoner. Presently before the Court is petitioner’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”). (Docket Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 10.) In support of such application, petitioner

submitted a Certificate of Funds in Prisoner’s Account signed by an authorized state official. 

The most recent Certificate of Funds shows that the average deposits to petitioner’s account

for the six months preceding the filing of the IFP application were $0.00, and the average

balance in petitioner’s account for the same time period was $554.68. 

Based on the above, the Court finds that petitioner is able to afford the $5.00 filing fee

in this action. Accordingly, petitioner’s application to proceed IFP is DENIED. Petitioner

Case 3:15-cv-04579-RS Document 11 Filed 11/10/15 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

No. C 15-4579 RS (PR)

2 ORDER DENYING IFP APPLICATION

shall pay the $5.00 filing fee in this matter by submitting full payment to the Clerk of the

Court on or before December 21, 2015. Petitioner’s failure to do so will result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b),

and without further notice to petitioner. His motion for an extension of time to file an IFP

application (Docket No. 9) is DENIED as moot. 

Petitioner’s motion (Docket No. 2) for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without

prejudice. There is no right to counsel in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith,

791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). A district court is authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)

(2)(B) to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines

that the interests of justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain

representation. The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court,

see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), and should be granted only when

exceptional circumstances are present. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal

Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383–86 (2d ed. 1994). Petitioner has not

shown that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. 

The Clerk shall terminate Docket Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 10, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04579-RS Document 11 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2