MADRIGAL v. MACOMBER

Case No. 1:14-cv-01436-LJO-SAB-HC.

ISCANDER FRANCISCO MADRIGAL, Petitioner, v. JEFF MACOMBER, Respondent.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Iscander Francisco Madrigal, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Jeff Macomber, Respondent, represented by Catherine Chatman , Attorney General's Office for the State of California.


ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL

(ECF Nos. 53, 54)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 24, 2017, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation and denied the petition. (ECF No. 46).

On April 17, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF No. 53). The Court previously permitted Petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No. 4). Therefore, Petitioner does not require further authorization to appeal in forma pauperis. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).

On April 17, 2017, Petitioner also filed a request for appointment of counsel on appeal. (ECF No. 54). There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if "the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). See also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at this time. However, Petitioner is not precluded from renewing his request for appointment of counsel in the Ninth Circuit.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 53) is DENIED as MOOT; and 2. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel on appeal (ECF No. 54) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its renewal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases