Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01706/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01706-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENE GUADALUPE TREVINO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11-CV-01706-H (PCL)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY; 

(2) DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ON APPEAL; and

(3) GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY, et al.,

Respondent.

On July 29, 2011, Petitioner Rene Guadalupe Trevino, a state prisoner proceeding pro

se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a parole

denial by the California Board of Parole Hearings. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 17, 2012, the

Court issued an order denying the petition and adopting the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. (Doc. No. 9.) On February 13, 2012, Petitioner filed requests for a

certificate of appealability, to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and for appointment of

counsel. (Doc. No. 11.)

- 1 - 11cv1706

Case 3:11-cv-01706-H-PCL Document 15 Filed 02/23/12 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

I. Certificate of Apealability

 According to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a petitioner may not seek an

appeal of a claim arising out of state court detention unless the petitioner obtains a certificate

of appealability from either the district judge or a circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. See

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Section 2253 states that a certificate of appealability may only issue if

the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1). Where, as here, the Court has rejected the petitioner’s constitutional claims on

the merits, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). 

The Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists

would find the Court’s assessment debatable or wrong. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s

motion for a certificate of appealability.

II. Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner also requests counsel be appointed to represent him on appeal. There is no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However,

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g) authorizes courts to appoint counsel in habeas proceedings if "the court

determines that the interests of justice so require." Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th

Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). 

“In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must

evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt

v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). 

The Court has already denied the petition on the merits and determines that the interests

of justice do not require appointment of counsel. The Court therefore DENIES the request for

appointment of counsel on appeal.

- 2 - 11cv1706

Case 3:11-cv-01706-H-PCL Document 15 Filed 02/23/12 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

III. In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner also requests to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and has attached a

declaration of his indigence to his notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 11.) The Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2012

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 3 - 11cv1706

Case 3:11-cv-01706-H-PCL Document 15 Filed 02/23/12 Page 3 of 3