Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05780/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05780-1/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 Petitioner self-dated his documents October 16, 2005. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALCOM P. COLEMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

DIANA BUTLER, Warden,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 03-5780 DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE APPEAL, DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Docs. 34, 35]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

On September 13, 2005, Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus was

denied and judgment was entered. On October 21, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to extend time

to file an appeal, a request for a certificate of appealability, and a motion for the appointment of

counsel. (Court Docs. 34, 35.) 

1

A. Request for Extension of Time

A notice of appeal must be filed by the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or

order appealed from is entered. See FRAP 4(a)(1)(A). However, the district court may extend

time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves no later than 30 days after the time for filing a

notice of appeal expires, and the party shows excusable neglect or good cause. See FRAP

Case 1:03-cv-05780-DLB Document 36 Filed 10/27/05 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

27

28

2

4(a)(5)(A). Petitioner filed his motion to extend time on October 21, 2005, which was less than

30 days after the expiration time for filing his appeal. In his motion to extend time, Petitioner

shows good cause for the extension, citing his inability to access the law library due to prison

lock-downs over which he has no control. Accordingly, good cause having been presented to the

court, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to

extend the time to file the appeal is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to October 21, 2005.

B. Request for Certificate of Appealability

The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28

U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a certificate

of appealability is DENIED.

C. Request for Appointment of Counsel

With regard to Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel to assist in his request

for a certificate of appealability, it is DENIED. There currently exists no absolute right to

appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481

Case 1:03-cv-05780-DLB Document 36 Filed 10/27/05 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

27

28

3

(9 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8 Cir.), cert.

th th

denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 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), Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the amended petition has been denied and

the Court finds no basis to grant a certificate of appealability; therefore, the Court does not find

that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel to assist Petitioner

with his request for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

To the extent Petitioner requests appointment of counsel to assist in his appeal, although

the district court may appoint counsel for an indigent pro se litigant in a civil appeal pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) in cases presenting exceptional circumstances, see, United States v.

McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9 Cir. 1981), it is not necessary for the Petitioner to seek such th

relief in the district court in the first instance. In any event, as counsel was not appointed in the

district court for this action, it is more efficient and appropriate for the appellate court to address

issues relating to counsel for the appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 27, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05780-DLB Document 36 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 3