Prasad v. Sisto

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 27, 2012. (mmcsecS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ASHISH VARMAN PRASAD, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) RICK HILL, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________ ) 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 No. C 08-5620 MMC (PR) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK (Docket No. 29) 15 16 17 18 On December 17, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the 19 above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254, challenging 20 the validity of a judgment obtained against him in state court. On June 1, 2012, the Court 21 denied the petition on the merits and denied a certificate of appealability. On June 25, 2012, 22 petitioner filed a notice of appeal. That same date, petitioner also filed a motion for 23 appointment of counsel on appeal. In its order denying the petition, the Court declined to 24 issue a certificate of appealability and determined there were no valid grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is hereby DENIED. 25 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to petitioner and to the 2 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, wherein petitioner may renew his request. See Fed. R. App. 3 P. 24(a). 4 This order terminates Docket No. 29. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 DATED: June 27, 2012 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?