Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00533/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00533-0/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

07cv0533

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT HAYES,

Petitioner,

v.

J. E. TILTON, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07CV0533 JAH(LSP)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, state prisoner appearing pro se, filed petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on March 21, 2007, challenging his conviction in state

court. On April 27, 2007, petitioner filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel to

represent him in this case. The Honorable Leo S. Papas, United States Magistrate Judge,

on May 23, 2007, denied petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel without

prejudice. Petitioner subsequently, on June 7, 2007, filed objections to the magistrate

judge’s May 23, 2007 order, which this Court, on June 22, 2007, overruled. Petitioner

has now filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s June 22, 2007 order, along with a motion

for a certificate of appealability. 

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). To meet this

threshold showing, petitioner must show that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists

of reason; or (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v.

Case 3:07-cv-00533-AJB-WVG Document 28 Filed 07/12/07 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

27

28

2 07cv0533

Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000)(citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473

(2000) and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)).

Here, petitioner appeals this Court’s order overruling petitioner’s objections to a

denial without prejudice of a motion for appointment of counsel. In overruling

petitioner’s objections, this Court agreed with the magistrate judge’s determination that

appointment of counsel was not warranted because petitioner is “literate, articulate,

intelligent and reasonably well-versed in the law.” Doc. # 24 at 3-4; Doc. # 20 at 4. This

Court finds that a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this instance because the

denial of petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel under the circumstances here is

not an issue debatable among jurists of reason nor could any other court resolve the issue

in a different manner. Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1024-25. Accordingly, this Court

DENIES petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability.

Dated: July 12, 2007

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00533-AJB-WVG Document 28 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 2