Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02787/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02787-1/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)

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

l3 

14 

16 

17 

18 

FILED 

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT 

ERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MAR 212012 

DEPl1TY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEE QUILLAR, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR 

THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; LORI 

KOSTER; TAMMY L. NIELSON; 

SALVATORE TARANTINO; and 

ELIZABETH A. BARRANCO GUITT ARD, 

Respondents. 

CASE NO. l1-cv-2787 - BEN (PCL) 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY 

19 II On November 12,2011, Lee Quillar, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a document 

entitled "Notice of Petition for Order to Take Deposition Before Action in Order to Perpetuate 

21 Testimony," [Doc. No.1], which this Court construed liberally as a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus 

22 pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 2254 ("Petition"). Quillar then filed a copy of his prison trust account 

23 statement, which the Court construed as a request to proceed in forma pauperis, and a request for 

24 II scheduling order. [Doc. Nos. 2, 3.] In the Petition, Quillar asked the Court for an "order to perpetuate 

II testimony" of Respondents, so that he could obtain evidence necessary for filing a complaint under 

26 II 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Pet., at 1,4.) On February 8, 2012, the Court granted Quillar's requestto proceed 

27 II in forma pauperis, dismissed the Petition without prejudice, and denied as moot the request for a 

28 II scheduling order. [Doc. No.4.] Quillar filed a notice of appeal on February 23,2012. [Doc. No.5.] 

- 1 - IIcv2787 

Case 3:11-cv-02787-BEN-PCL Document 6 Filed 03/21/12 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 

II "Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be 

II taken to the court of appeals from . . . the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

A certificate ofappealability is authorized "only ifthe applicant has made a substantial showing ofthe 

II denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this standard, a petitioner must 

II show "that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional 

/I claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citingSlackv. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473,484 (2000». The petitioner does not have to show "'that he should prevail on the merits. He has 

already failed in that endeavor.'" Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983». 

Here, the Court denied the Petition on two grounds. First, Quillar failed to name a proper 

respondent. See Ortiz-Sandovalv. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891,894-95 (9th Cir. 1996). Second, Quillar failed 

1/ to allege how his state court conviction or sentence violated the Constitution or laws or treaties ofthe 

II United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Having fully reviewed the legal issues raised by the Petition, 

II the Court concludes that the claims raised therein are not such that ''jurists of reason could disagree 

with the district court's resolution" of them, nor are they sufficiently adequate "to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further." See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

/

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: March.a:?,2012 

-2- llcv2787 

Case 3:11-cv-02787-BEN-PCL Document 6 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 2