Kay

(HC) Afzal v. Kay

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 18, 20202:20-cv-01614California388 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MUHAMMAD TAHSEEN AFZAL, No. 2:20-cv-1614 AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER WENDY KAY, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I. Filing Fee Petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to either submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or submit the appropriate filing fee. II. Appointment of Counsel Petitioner has requested 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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.