Torrence

Torrence v. Matteson

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 26, 20223:22-cv-01699California692 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 WILLIE A. TORRENCE, Case No. 22-cv-01699-VC

Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING

v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL;

VACATING DENIAL OF REQUEST

GIGI MATTESON, TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Respondent. Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 11, 14

12 Willie A. Torrence filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1. Torrence has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, explaining that he is indigent and unable to afford an attorney to represent him. Dkt. No. 14. He has also filed a motion for extension of time, which is granted. Dkt. No. 11. With respect to the filing fee in this case, the court has reviewed the record and finds that Torrence has made a good-faith effort to pay the filing fee but has been unable to do so. Accordingly, the court vacates the earlier denial of Torrence’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and grants him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.…

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.