Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00567/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00567-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roosevelt Jermaine Coleman
Petitioner
James Rowland
Respondent

Document Text:

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

ROOSEVELT JERMAINE COLEMAN, No. CIV-S-00-0567 MCE/JFM P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

JAMES ROWLAND, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has

timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's May 4, 2005,

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). 

///

Case 2:00-cv-00567-MCE -JFM Document 20 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 5
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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be 1

specifically identified, the standard for issuance of a

certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that

applied to issuance of a certificate of probable cause. 

Jennings, at 1010.

2

The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific

issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any

issue that petitioner can demonstrate is “‘debatable among

jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different 

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.’” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir.

2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right in the following issues presented in the

instant petition: (1) whether his conviction for conspiracy to

commit murder violates the Fourteenth Amendment because of the

probability that the jurors did not find an actual intent to

kill; (2) whether the merging of separate conspiracies into one

conspiracy prevented him from presenting a defense, in violation

of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) whether the merging

of two separate conspiracies into one conspiracy violated his

Fourteenth Amendment right to notice of the charges against him;

(4) whether his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was

violated by a jury instruction on adoptive admissions; 

///

Case 2:00-cv-00567-MCE -JFM Document 20 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

and (5) whether his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was

violated by improper reference to other crimes. 

Petitioner has also filed a request to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. The court file reflects that petitioner paid

the filing fee for this action. Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure provides, in part, that where a petitioner

has not been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the

district court action, a motion for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis on appeal must attach an affidavit that “shows in the

detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party’s

inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs.” 

Petitioner has attached the appropriate affidavit. Accordingly,

his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will be

granted.

Petitioner’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as

attorney of record. Counsel states that he was appointed to

represent petitioner in his state appeal and that he has been

representing him in this federal habeas corpus action without

remuneration. He requests that different counsel be appointed to

represent petitioner for any further proceedings. Pursuant to

Local Rule 83-182(d), an attorney who has appeared may not

withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of

Court. Good cause appearing, the request of attorney Mark D.

Greenberg to withdraw as attorney of record for petitioner will

be granted.

/// 

Case 2:00-cv-00567-MCE -JFM Document 20 Filed 06/16/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

There currently exists 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. Accordingly,

petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel will be

denied. Any request for the appointment of counsel on appeal

should be made to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit and not to this court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A certificate of appealability is issued in the

present action;

2. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal is granted;

3. The request of Mark D. Greenberg to withdraw as

petitioner’s attorney of record is granted; and

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:00-cv-00567-MCE -JFM Document 20 Filed 06/16/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

4. Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel on

appeal is denied without prejudice to its renewal in the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED: June 16, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:00-cv-00567-MCE -JFM Document 20 Filed 06/16/05 Page 5 of 5