Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01671/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01671-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE DANIEL JOHNSON,

Petitioner, 2:02-cv-1671-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

JOE McGRATH, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court’s March 3, 2008 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner

can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

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

§ 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01671-GEB -JFM Document 97 Filed 04/09/08 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

2

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s February 8, 2008 findings and

recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

Petitioner has also requested appointment of counsel. There is no absolute right

to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th

Cir. 1996). However, 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 present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the

appointment of counsel at the present time. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

2. Petitioner’s March 10, 2008 request for appointment of counsel is denied.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process petitioner’s appeal to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Dated: April 9, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01671-GEB -JFM Document 97 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 2