Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01340/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01340-1/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

1

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL FLORES,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN CLARK, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-1340 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; DENYING

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket Nos. 27 & 28)

On December 19, 2002, petitioner Michael Flores, a California prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. On February 8, 2007, judgment was entered against petitioner after the petition was

denied on its merits. On February 23, 2007, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a request

for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 22(b). Petitioner has not shown “that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). Accordingly, the request for a certificate of

appealability is DENIED.

On February 23, 2007, petitioner also filed a request for appointment of counsel. As

judgment has already been entered in this matter, there is no need for appointment of counsel

herein. If petitioner wishes to have counsel appointed for the purpose of appeal, he may seek

Case 3:03-cv-01340-MMC Document 32 Filed 03/02/07 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

27

28

2

such appointment in the court of appeals. Accordingly, the motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED. 

The Clerk shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from which petitioner also may seek a certificate of

appealability. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 27 & 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 2, 2007 ____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:03-cv-01340-MMC Document 32 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 2