Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00863/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00863-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv863-MMA (WVG)

ORDER DENYING MOTION AND

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY;

[Doc. No. 6]

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON

APPEAL

[Doc. No. 7]

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,

Respondent.

On April 11, 2013, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for

lack of jurisdiction. [See Doc. No. 3.] Now, Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability and

the appointment of counsel on appeal. [Doc. Nos. 6-7.] The Court declines to issue a certificate of

appealability, and denies Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel. 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11 foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A petitioner may not seek an

appeal of a claim arising out of a state court detention unless the petitioner first obtains a

certificate of appealability from a district judge or circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b). When a petition is, as here, dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of

- 1 - 13cv863

Case 3:13-cv-00863-MMA-WVG Document 8 Filed 05/08/13 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

appealability should be granted only if two elements are satisfied: (1) “jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”; and (2)

“jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). As each of these components is a

“threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose of the application in a fair and

prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the

record and arguments.” Id. at 485. 

As the Court noted in its order dismissing this action, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this

matter because neither Petitioner nor the inmates he seeks to proceed on behalf of are confined in

the Southern District of California.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner has not shown that jurists of reason would find

anything debatable in the procedural ruling that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Thus, the Court need

not decide whether the application states a valid constitutional claim. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 485.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion and DECLINES to issue a certificate

of appealability in this case. Further, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

counsel on appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 8, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

1

The Court’s previous order, however, did provide Petitioner the opportunity to proceed in a

Court with proper jurisdiction.

- 2 - 13cv863

Case 3:13-cv-00863-MMA-WVG Document 8 Filed 05/08/13 Page 2 of 2