Quinata v. Zavislan

Filing 20

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; denying 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 18 Motion for additional claims and documents on appeal; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Tanya Quinata, Prisoner ID: 355473)(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

TANYA NADINE QUINATA,

CASE NO. C17-5268RBL

9
Petitioner,
10
11

ORDER

v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,

12

Respondent.

13
14
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following motions: Petitioner Quinata’s

15
16

Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis [Dkt. #16]; her Motion for appointment of

17

counsel on appeal [Dkt. # 17]; and her Motion for additional claims and documents on appeal

18

[Dkt. #18].
This Court adopted [Dkt. # 13] the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

19
20

[DKt. #11] and dismissed this § 2254 petition with prejudice, on both procedural and substantive

21

bases.

22
23
24

ORDER - 1

The Court must determine whether Quinata’s in forma pauperis status should continue on

1
2

appeal, or whether his appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(c). For the

3

reasons outlined in the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Report and Recommendation (and the state

4

court determinations upon which it was based), Quinata’s appeal is frivolous and this Court will

5

not continue her in forma pauperis status on appeal. Because she has not made a substantial

6

showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court will not issue a Certificate of Appeal. 28

7

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Quintana seeks the appointment of counsel on appeal. Her motion was filed in this Court

8
9

although it appears to be addressed to the Ninth Circuit. The Court will appoint counsel only

10

under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

11

1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of

12

success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

13

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (internal quotations

14

omitted). These factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on whether to

15

appoint counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Id. Quinata’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel on

16

appeal [Dkt. #17] does not meet this standard, and it is DENIED.
Finally, Quinata also asks the Ninth Circuit for “additional claims and documents on

17
18

appeal.” The exact nature of this request is unclear, but she asks the Ninth Circuit to direct this

19

Court to send to her “any additional claims it did not specify.” The entire record in this case is

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

ORDER - 2

1

available on appeal. If and to the extent Quinata’s request is addressed to this Court, it is

2

DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 12th day of February, 2018.

6

A

7

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

5

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 3