Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00426/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00426-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathleen Dickinson
Respondent
Edward Stephen Gonzales
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD STEPHEN GONZALES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-0426 DAD P

vs.

KATHLEEN DICKINSON, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner at the California Medical Facility and who is

proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. This case was transferred to this court

from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Western Division.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Since petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violation of constitutional

rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s habeas petition.

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists

no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105

Case 2:10-cv-00426-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 03/18/10 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

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’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1 at 9-10), is

granted; 

2. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner’s habeas petition within

sixty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer

shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in

the petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

3. If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply, if any,

shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer;

4. If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after

service of the motion, and respondent’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fourteen

days thereafter;

5. Petitioner’s February 12, 2010 request for appointment of counsel (doc. No. 3)

is denied without prejudice; and

6. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order, a copy of the petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. Nos. 1 & 2), and the court’s form

regarding consent or request for reassignment on Jennifer A. Neill, Supervising Deputy Attorney

General.

DATED: March 17, 2010.

DAD:4

gonz0426.100

Case 2:10-cv-00426-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2