Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00141/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00141-7/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

THEODORE O’DELL WILSON,

Petitioner, Case No. 1:06-cv-00141 ALA (HC) 

vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Theodore O’Dell Wilson (“Mr. Wilson”), a state prisoner, filed an application for habeas

corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) on January 23, 2006, based on alleged violations

of his federal constitutional rights (Doc. 1). Mr. Wilson’s habeas petition was dismissed because

it was untimely filed, and Mr. Wilson failed to demonstrate an extraordinary circumstance to

warrant equitable tolling of the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations. (Doc. 29). 

Pending before this Court are Mr. Wilson’s motions to grant a Certificate of

Appealability (Doc. 32), to appoint counsel (Doc. 33) and to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.

35).

I

Before Petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1).

Case 1:06-cv-00141-ALA Document 37 Filed 09/19/08 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

2

“A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S. C. § 2253(c)(2). Because this Court

dismissed Mr. Wilson’s application on procedural grounds, the constitutional merits were not

reached. This Court cannot issue a certificate of appealability “[w]here a plain procedural bar is

present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, [and] a reasonable

jurist could not conclude either the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the

petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

II

No absolute right to appointment of counsel exists in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v.

Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9 Cir. 1996). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however,

 th 

appointment of counsel may be granted by this Court “if the interests of justice so require.” This

Court finds that the interests of justice would not be served by the appointment of counsel at the

present time. Therefore, Mr. Wilson’s request for an appointment of counsel is denied.

III

Rule 24 (a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in relevant part:

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the

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

without further authorization, unless:

(A) the district court--before or after the notice of appeal is

filed--certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds

that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis

and states in writing its reasons for the certification or finding; or

(B) a statute provides otherwise.

Because Mr. Wilson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted during the

course of the district court action, and this Court does not find additional authorization is

required pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mr. Wilson’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied as moot. (Doc. 10).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Mr. Wilson’s motion for a Certificate of Appealability be DENIED. (Doc. 32);

Case 1:06-cv-00141-ALA Document 37 Filed 09/19/08 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. Mr. Wilson’s motion seeking an appoint of counsel be DENIED. (Doc. 33); and

3. Mr. Wilson’s motion to be deemed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED (Doc.

35). 

/////

DATED: September 18, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation 

Case 1:06-cv-00141-ALA Document 37 Filed 09/19/08 Page 3 of 3