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)

Download PDF
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

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?