Sorrell v. Swarthout et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY(SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2011)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ANTHONY SORRELL,

7

Petitioner,

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 09-05888 SI
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

v.
GARY SWARTHOUT,
Respondent.

/

11
12

Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Petitioner has not made “a

13

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court

14

considered petitioner’s sufficiency challenge in light of the overall record in this case, and it cannot be

15

said that “reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims

16

debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 413, 484 (2000).

17

Petitioner’s counsel has also indicated that he may be unable to represent petitioner on appeal.

18

He believes that petitioner is indigent and qualifies for appointed counsel on that basis, and has asked

19

for guidance from the Court. The Court will entertain a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal,

20

if accompanied by the proper documentation. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Any motion for

21

appointment of counsel on appeal should be directed to the Ninth Circuit.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27
28

Dated: August 30, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge