Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01407/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01407-1/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

07cv1407

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHHOUY CHHOUN,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA POWER,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07CV1407 JAH(JMA)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON

APPEAL [DOCS. # 17, 18]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on August 1, 2007, challenging his conviction in state

court. The matter was referred to Honorable Jan M. Adler, United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)B) and Local Rule HC.2(a). On November 02,

2007, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of

limitations. Judge Adler issued a report and recommendation (“report”) on April 21,

2008, recommending that this Court to dismiss the petition as untimely. Judge Adler

found the petition, which was filed almost ten years after the limitation period expired,

was untimely and petitioner was not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling. On May 16,

2008, petitioner filed objections to the magistrates judge’s findings and conclusions

contained in the report. This Court subsequently overruled petitioner’s objections,

adopted the report it its entirety, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed

the petition as untimely filed. 

//

Case 3:07-cv-01407-JAH-JMA Document 19 Filed 10/14/08 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 07cv1407

On October 6, 2008, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal which included an

applicationt for a certificate of appealability along with motion for appointment of counsel

on appeal. See Docs. # 16, 17, 18. 

1. 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, a petitioner must show : (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.

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 dismissing the petition for writ of habeas

corpus as untimely filed. In overruling petitioner’s objections and dismissing the petition,

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

insufficient evidence to support his claim that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the

statute of limitations. See Doc. # 14 at 6-7. This Court finds that a certificate of

appealability is not warranted in this instance because the dismissal of the petition 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 application for a certificate of appealability.

2. Motion for Appointment of Counsel on Appeal

Petitioner also moves for appointment of counsel on appeal because he claims he

cannot afford counsel. See Doc. # 18. This Court finds that petitioner’s motion is best

directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Accordingly, this Court DENIES without

prejudice petitioner’s motion, and directs petitioner to renew his motion for appointment

of counsel before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-01407-JAH-JMA Document 19 Filed 10/14/08 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 07cv1407

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability [doc. # 17] is

DENIED; and

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal [doc. # 18] is

DENIED without prejudice to renewal before the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals.

DATED: October 14, 2008

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01407-JAH-JMA Document 19 Filed 10/14/08 Page 3 of 3