Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01558/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01558-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND H. DENTON, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1558 RRB JFM P

vs.

SILVIA GARCIA, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court’s December 18, 2007 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner

has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, a motion for appointment of

counsel and a DNA expert, and an application for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01558-RRB -JFM Document 74 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 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

 There is no inconsistency in denying a certificate of appealability while declining to 1

certify that appeal is not taken in good faith for purposes of the in forma pauperis statute. See

Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550-551(9th Cir. 1977) (comparing standards for issuance of

certificate of probable cause and for allowing an appeal to proceed in forma pauperis). Since the

test for a certificate of appealability is “more demanding” than that for a certificate of

appealability, see Williams v. Calderon, 83 F.3d 281, 286 (9th Cir. 1996), the rationale of

Gardner is still applicable.

2

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s October 11, 2007 findings and

recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Accordingly, petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability will be denied. 

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 require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does

not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. Petitioner’s

motion for appointment of counsel will therefore be denied. Petitioner’s motion for appointment

of a DNA expert will also be denied. 

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows:

[A] party who has been permitted to proceed in an action in the

district court in forma pauperis . . . may proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis without further authorization unless . . . the district court

shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find

that the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed . . . . 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Petitioner was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court at

the start of these proceedings. This court has not certified that petitioner’s appeal is not taken in

good faith or otherwise found that petitioner is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. For 1

that reason, petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is unnecessary.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s January 15, 2008 request for a certificate of appealability is denied;

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01558-RRB -JFM Document 74 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 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

3

2. Petitioner’s January 15, 2008 motion for appointment of counsel and a DNA

expert is denied;

3. Petitioner’s January 15, 2008 application to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal is denied as unnecessary; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process petitioner’s appeal to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED: 2/12/2008

/s/ Ralph R. Beistline 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01558-RRB -JFM Document 74 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 3