Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00548/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00548-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY LEVORNE WARE, 

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondnet. )

____________________________________)

1: 05 -CV- 0548 AWI TAG HC 

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Documents #22 & #23]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 13, 2008, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations and dismissed the petition for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his

state remedies prior to filing this action. On March 31, 2008, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. 

On March 31, 2008, Petitioner also filed a motion for counsel.

The court has entered a final order dismissing this action, and Petitioner is now

attempting to appeal this dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. As such, it appears that Petitioner is

seeking counsel to help him appeal this action. This court does not appoint counsel to represent

parties on appeal. Petitioner’s motion for counsel must be denied without prejudice to

Petitioner asking the Ninth Circuit for counsel.

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Before Petitioner can appeal this’s court’s

decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b). 

Case 1:05-cv-00548-AWI-TAG Document 24 Filed 04/30/08 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

27

28 2

Although no express request was made for a certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal is

deemed to constitute a request for a certificate. See Fed. R.App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar,

108 F.3d 217, 218 (9 Cir. 1997). th

The controlling statute for issuing 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).

When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a certificate of appealability should issue, and an

appeal of the district court's order may be taken, if the petitioner shows, at least, that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right, and that 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). 

In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not disagree with the

court’s finding that Petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies prior to filing suit. The court

finds that standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253 have not met. Thus, the court declines to issue

a certificate of appealability. 

Case 1:05-cv-00548-AWI-TAG Document 24 Filed 04/30/08 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

27

28 3

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a

motion for counsel in the Ninth Circuit; and

2. No certificate of appealability SHALL BE ISSUED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00548-AWI-TAG Document 24 Filed 04/30/08 Page 3 of 3