Diaz v. Lewis

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE

NANDOR J. VADAS, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County, which is in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge.

BACKGROUND

On May 29, 2007, petitioner pled guilty to dissuading a witness and committing a felony on behalf of criminal street gang. He was sentenced to 7 years to life in state prison. Petitioner's habeas petitions to the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court were denied.^[1]

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must "specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner... [and] state the facts supporting each ground." Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. "[N]otice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.'" Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner's sole ground for federal habeas relief is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his guilty plea. Liberally construed, this claim is sufficient to require a response.

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that in habeas cases, whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require", representation may be provided for any financially eligible person. Petitioner has presented his claim adequately, and it is not particularly complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel.

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED.

2. The motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 2) is DENIED.

3. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of ...