Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00877/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00877-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DUNG TRAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF MACOMBER, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 11-cv-00877-CW 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

AND MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL 

(Dkt. Nos. 34, 36, 37) 

Petitioner Dung Tran filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus to challenge a 2007 murder conviction in Santa Clara 

County Superior Court. Respondent filed an answer to the 

petition on July 21, 2011. At Petitioner's request, this action 

was stayed and administratively closed on August 10, 2012 so that 

Petitioner could exhaust state court remedies as to two claims. 

On January 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to lift the stay 

and reopen the action together with a first amended petition for 

writ of habeas corpus. On March 18, 2014, the Court granted the 

motion and ordered Respondent to show cause why the first amended 

petition should not be granted. On May 19, 2014, Respondent 

filed a motion to dismiss the two new claims in the first amended 

petition as untimely and procedurally defaulted. On January 14, 

2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that 

the new claims were procedurally defaulted and that Petitioner 

had failed to argue cause and prejudice for the procedural 

default. Petitioner then moved for reconsideration of the 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 40 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

January 14, 2015 order. On April 16, 2015, the Court 

reconsidered and reaffirmed its order granting the motion to 

dismiss. As a result of the January 14, 2015 and April 16, 2015 

rulings, the two new claims in the first amended petition have 

been dismissed and three claims remain for adjudication. 

Petitioner's traverse was due on June 22, 2015. This matter is 

now before the Court for consideration of three miscellaneous 

requests from Petitioner. 

Petitioner has filed an application for a certificate of 

appealability permitting him to appeal the April 16, 2015 order. 

A certificate of appealability is not appropriate at this point 

in time because no final order or judgment has been entered. In 

a habeas action, "the final order shall be subject to review" on 

appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). "Unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken 

to the court of appeals from . . . the final order in a habeas 

corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out 

of process issued by a State court." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

Section 2253 does not mention interlocutory appeals, nor does it 

authorize the issuance of a certificate of appealability for an 

interlocutory appeal. 

Even if section 2253 did authorize the issuance of a 

certificate of appealability for an interlocutory appeal, an 

interlocutory appeal plainly is not appropriate as to either the 

January 14, 2015 order dismissing two of the five claims as 

procedurally defaulted, or the April 16, 2015 order that 

reaffirmed the order dismissing two of the five claims as 

procedurally defaulted. The orders do not involve a controlling 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 40 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

question of law and an immediate appeal from either order would 

not materially advance the ultimate termination of this case. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)("When a district judge, in making in a 

civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this 

section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a 

controlling question of law as to which there is substantial 

ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal 

from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of 

the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order"); 

see, e.g., Smith v. Chappell, 584 F. App'x 790 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(dismissing interlocutory appeal from order denying motion to 

stay federal habeas proceedings to exhaust state remedies because 

the order was not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final 

judgment); Pena-Calleja v. Ring, 720 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir. 

2013) (denial of habeas petitioner's motion for appointment of 

counsel would not be reviewed on interlocutory appeal because the 

order was not a conclusive determination and the denial was 

clearly reviewable on appeal of a final order). Petitioner's 

application for a certificate of appealability for the premature 

appeal is DENIED. Dkt. No. 36. The denial of the certificate of 

appealability is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new 

request for a certificate of appealability after a final order 

and judgment are entered. 

Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on his appeal from the "judgment entered in this case on 

April 16, 2015." Dkt. No. 34 at 1. As explained in the 

preceding paragraph, there has not been a final order or judgment 

entered in this case and an interlocutory appeal from the April 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 40 Filed 06/30/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

16, 2015 order plainly is not appropriate. Petitioner's motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on an immediate appeal 

from the April 16, 2015 order is DENIED because such an appeal 

would be frivolous. Dkt. No. 34. Petitioner may file a new 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal after a 

final order and judgment are entered. 

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to 

represent him in this action. The Sixth Amendment right to 

counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. 

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Title 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, authorizes a district court 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. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 

1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 

1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The courts have made appointment of counsel 

the exception rather than the rule by limiting it to: (1) capital 

cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex procedural, 

legal or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving 

uneducated or mentally or physically impaired petitioners; 

(4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in 

framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which the petitioner 

is in no position to investigate crucial facts; and (6) factually 

complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal 

Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 

1994). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 40 Filed 06/30/15 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to 

prevent due process violations. Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; 

Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). 

 The Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted 

in this case. Petitioner’s claims appear to be the typical 

claims that arise in criminal appeals and habeas petitions and 

are not especially complex. This does not appear to be an 

exceptional case that would warrant representation on federal 

habeas review. There also is no indication that an evidentiary 

hearing is required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). If during its 

review of the merits of the petition the Court determines that 

further fact finding is required, the Court will decide whether 

to hold an evidentiary hearing or whether the facts can be 

gathered by way of mechanisms short of an evidentiary hearing, 

such as supplementation of the record with sworn declarations 

from the pertinent witnesses. Downs v. Hoyt, 232 F.3d 1031, 1041 

(9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel 

is DENIED. Dkt. No. 37. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 06/30/2015 

__________________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:11-cv-00877-CW Document 40 Filed 06/30/15 Page 5 of 5