United States District Court, N.D. California
MAX L. ISRAEL, Petitioner,
C. WOFFORD, Respondent.
ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW, RE: DKT. NO. 5
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, United States District Judge.
a California prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging a resentencing. The resentencing occurred in
Santa Clara County, which is in this district, so venue is
proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The
petition was dismissed with leave to amend and petitioner has
filed an amended petition.
a jury convicted petitioner of carjacking and related counts
for using a firearm. Petitioner was sentenced to 75 years to
life in prison consecutive to 10 years. In 2012, petitioner
sought relief in state superior court for resentencing under
Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act. Petitioner was
appointed counsel and was resentenced to 25 years to life in
prison consecutive to 13 years and four months.
Petitioner’s appeals to the California Court of Appeal
and California Supreme Court were denied.
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. § 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)).
grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that:
(1) there were various sentencing errors resulting in a
violation of the Sixth Amendment; and (2) he was denied
counsel. Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to
also seeks 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 claims adequately, and
they are not particularly complex. The interests of justice
do not require appointment of counsel.
motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 5) is DENIED.
clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and
the amended petition and all attachments thereto on
respondent and respondent’s attorney, the Attorney
General of the State of California. The clerk also shall
serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner,
within fifty-six (56) days of the issuance of this order, an
answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of
habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file
with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all
portions of the state trial record that have ...