ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
Cindy Norma Sayad, an inmate at the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Her petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Her motions for appointment of counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and to proceed as a pauper also are before the court.
Sayad was convicted in Contra Costa County Superior Court of "driving under the influence causing injury, plus enhancements." Docket # 1, p. 2. On July 10, 2010, she was sentenced to ten years in prison. She appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review in 2012. Sayad also filed unsuccessful state habeas petitions before filing this action.
A. Review Of Petition
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
The petition alleges the following claims: (1) Sayad received ineffective assistance of counsel in that counsel failed to call witness Samantha Gilmore; (2) Sayad's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when the trial court improperly excluded evidence relevant to a prosecution witness' credibility; and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors denied her due process. Liberally construed, the claims are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding.
B. Petitioner's Motions
Petitioner requests that counsel be appointed to represent her in this action. A district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require" and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this action. The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 3.)
Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. (Docket # 4.) If, after the petition is fully briefed on the merits, the court determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary it will order one sua sponte.
For the foregoing ...