United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE DOCKET NO.
DONATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Aaron Brown, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He
has paid the filing fee.
found petitioner guilty of second degree murder. People
v. Brown, No. A144660, 2016 WL 6744989, at *1
(Cal.Ct.App. Nov. 15, 2016). The California Court of Appeal
affirmed the conviction. Id. at 8. The California
Supreme Court denied review. Petition at 16.
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) the trial court erred by precluding him from testifying
about his knowledge of the victim's violent acts against
third parties; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to argue that petitioner's testimony about the
victim's violent acts was proper. Liberally construed,
these claims are sufficient to require a response.
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 claims adequately, and
they are not particularly complex.
motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 2) is
clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and
the 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 ...