Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06012/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06012-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAAC MACIAS CORONADO,

Petitioner,

v.

M. YARBOROUGH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:04-cv-06012-AWI-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO REFILE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL AS NOTICE OF APPEAL

(ECF No. 32)

Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. On March 31, 2008, the Court denied the petition and entered judgment. (ECF 

Nos. 28, 29). On November 21, 2019, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for relief from 

judgment and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 31).

On January 27, 2020, the Court received the instant motion for appointment of counsel. 

(ECF No. 32). There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 

proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. 

Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the 

appointment of counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the 

interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). See also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims 

Case 1:04-cv-06012-AWI-SAB Document 33 Filed 05/01/20 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

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because of his mental condition, his 

lack of access to relevant documents, limited access to the law library, and his lack of education 

regarding the law. However, the Court does not find that appointment of counsel is appropriate. 

First, Petitioner does not adequately address the rationale for denying either his habeas corpus 

petition or his motion for relief from judgment. Second, and relatedly, Petitioner does not 

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the 

appointment of counsel at the present time. Third, the Court cannot find that petitioner is unable 

to articulate his claims. 

In addition to requesting appointment of counsel, Petitioner also states in the motion that 

he “want[s] certificate to appeal.” (ECF No. 32 at 3). In the November 21, 2019 order denying 

relief from judgment, the Court found that “jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether 

the Court abused its discretion in denying the Ruble 60(b) motion for relief from judgment” and 

declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 31 at 4). Although Petitioner provides 

documents and new, more expansive allegations in support of his claim that his mental condition 

prevented him from seeking review of his claims,1the Court finds that jurists of reason would 

not find it debatable whether: (1) the Court abused its discretion in denying the Ruble 60(b) 

motion for relief from judgment and (2) the underlying § 2254 petition states a valid claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. See Payton v. Davis, 906 F.3d 812, 818 n.8 (9th Cir. 2018); 

United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court declines 

to issue a certificate of appealability.

 

1 The court denied the petition and entered judgment on March 31, 2008. (ECF Nos. 28, 29). More than eleven years 

later, Petitioner filed the motion for relief from judgment on August 19, 2019. (ECF No. 30). Petitioner references 

being in the critical psych unit for fifteen to eighteen months at the time the judgment was entered in 2008, 

attempting suicide on October 25, 2012, and banging his head over sixty times on March 14, 2018. (ECF No. 32 at 

2). Attached to the motion is a mental health evaluation, dated April 15, 2016, which shows Petitioner’s diagnosis of

schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder. (ECF No. 32 at 14). Despite Petitioner’s diagnosis and history of 

mental health issues, an interdisciplinary progress note, dated April 29, 2016, indicated that Petitioner was 

“cooperative” and “alert,” his thoughts were “linear, logical with modest insight,” and that Petitioner had no 

“difficulties with attention or comprehension with good concentration and organization of thoughts.” (ECF No. 32 at 

15). Moreover, the dates provided by Petitioner do not adequately account for the eleven year gap between the 

denial of Petitioner’s § 2254 petition and his motion for relief from judgment.

Case 1:04-cv-06012-AWI-SAB Document 33 Filed 05/01/20 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

Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings and motions liberally. Bernhardt v. Los 

Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). In the motion, Petitioner requests that an 

attorney who specializes in habeas appeals to be appointed and states that he “want[s] certificate 

to appeal.” (ECF No. 32 at 2, 3). Therefore, the Court construes the instant motion for 

appointment of counsel as a notice of appeal. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82 

(2003) (courts may recharacterize a pro se motion to “create a better correspondence between the 

substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED; 

2. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to refile the motion for appointment of counsel 

(ECF No. 32) as a notice of appeal and to process the appeal to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06012-AWI-SAB Document 33 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 3