Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00623/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00623-1/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

- 1 - 08cv623

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY VERNON JONES,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08CV623 JLS (RBB)

ORDER (1) DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY and (2)

DENYING RENEWED MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 15)

vs.

L.E. SCRIBNER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s

July 8, 2008 Order dismissing petitioner’s second amended petition without leave to amend for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 15.) The notice of appeal also renews

petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel. (Id.)

This Court must “construe [Jones’s] notice of appeal as a request for certificate of

appealability.” Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Sassounian v.

Roe, 230 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2000)). A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2) (2008). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could

conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” MilleerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Case 3:08-cv-00623-JLS-RBB Document 16 Filed 08/26/08 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

- 2 - 08cv623

The court must either grant the certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the

required showing or state why a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

The certificate should not issue because reasonable jurists would agree that petitioner has

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. On the basis of the authorities cited in the Court’s

July 8, 2008 Order, petitioner must exhaust his administrative remedies before he can pursue a

habeas petition in this Court.

There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v.

Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). 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), Fed. R.

Governing § 2254 Cases. In the absence of evidence that petitioner has exhausted his

administrative remedies, the Court finds the interests of justice would not be served by

appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES petitioner’s requests for a certificate of appealability and

appointment of counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 26, 2008

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00623-JLS-RBB Document 16 Filed 08/26/08 Page 2 of 2