United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE APPOINTED COUNSEL AND STAY
DONATO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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 San Francisco County which is in this
district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(d). He has paid the filing fee.
2009, a jury found petitioner guilty of murder, intentional
discharge of a firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm,
possession of cocaine base and possession of a controlled
substance. Petition at 1. In 2012 the California Court of
Appeal affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme
Court denied review. Id. at 15-16. Petitioner filed
various state habeas petitions from 2015 to 2017 containing
claims similar to the claims in this petition. Id.
at 16. An evidentiary hearing was held in 2017 in the
superior court, but the petition was denied. Id. at
17. The California Supreme Court denied review on July 11,
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) he is actually innocent; (2) he received ineffective
assistance of counsel; (3) there was juror misconduct; (4)
his due process rights were violated under Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (5) there was
cumulative error. Petitioner has also filed a motion to stay
the case while he exhausts some or all of these claims.
Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas
corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,
728 (9th Cir. 1986). But 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)
authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a
habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that
the interests of justice so require.” The Court finds
that the interests of justice warrant the appointment of
counsel. There are complex issues of law and possibly
complicated procedural issues that may need to be addressed.
This matter is REFERRED to the Federal
Public Defender to find representation for petitioner. If
petitioner does not want to be represented by an attorney or
if he is financially able to employ counsel, he must inform
the Court as soon as possible.
Clerk is asked to serve a copy of this order to the Office of
the Federal Public Defender to obtain a lawyer for the Court
to appoint. The case is STAYED pending
IS SO ORDERED.
undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the
Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, ...