Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02563/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02563-2/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

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-2563 FCD DAD P 

vs.

WARDEN GALAZA, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

from this court’s December 7, 2006 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. In his

notice of appeal, petitioner requests continuation of his in forma pauperis status on appeal and

appointment of counsel.

An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing

that it is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In the present case, it appears that

petitioner’s appeal is taken in good faith. 

Counsel may be appointed at any stage of a habeas corpus proceeding “if the

interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. See also Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this case.

///// 

Case 2:02-cv-02563-FCD-DAD Document 19 Filed 01/03/07 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

2

A federal habeas petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability in order to

appeal a denial of relief where “the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a

State court.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A). “[A] certificate of appealability ‘is not required when a

state prisoner challenges an administrative decision regarding the execution of his sentence.’” 

Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quoting White v. Lambert,

370 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. White v. Morgan, 543 U.S. 991

(2004), reh’g denied, 544 U.S. 944 (2005). Thus, the district court must consider “who made

‘the detention decision complained of by the state prisoner,’ an administrative body or a judicial

one, in determining whether a certificate of appealability is required.” 428 F.3d at 1231 (quoting

White, 370 F.3d at 1010). Here, petitioner complained of an administrative decision finding him

guilty of a prison disciplinary charge. No certificate of appealability is required, and none will

be issued.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s appeal has been taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3);

2. Petitioner’s December 20, 2006 request for appointment of counsel is denied;

and

3. No certificate of appealability is required with regard to the state

administrative decision at issue in this case, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to process

petitioner’s appeal.

DATED: January 3, 2007.

Case 2:02-cv-02563-FCD-DAD Document 19 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2