United States District Court, N.D. California, Eureka Division
ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DKT. NO.
M. ILLMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner was convicted in Alameda County, so venue is
proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
Petitioner has paid the filing fee and consented to the
jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. See (dkts. 7,
was convicted of committing two robberies and possessing a
firearm as a felon. People v. Taylor, No. A148960,
2018 WL 3968496, at *1 (Cal.Ct.App. Aug. 20, 2018).
Petitioner was sentenced to a 15-year term in state prison.
Id. at 3. On direct appeal, the state appellate
court remanded for the trial court to consider whether to
impose the firearm-use enhancement, while affirming the
judgment in all other respects. Id. at 7.
Thereafter, the California Supreme Court denied review.
Pet. (dkt. 1) at 3. Petitioner's state court
habeas petitions were denied. Id. at 3-4.
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)).
grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner asserts that:
(1) the uncharged crime evidence that was presented to prove
his identity unconstitutionally lightened the
prosecution's burden of proof on the charged offense to
permit the jury to find Petitioner was the offender in the
uncharged crime by a preponderance of the evidence; (2) trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct a pretrial
investigation, specifically for failing to challenge the
search of Petitioner's car trunk; and (3) that evidence
was illegally seized by police. Pet. (dkt. 1) at
3-6. Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to
require a response.
has also requested the appointment of counsel. See
Pet.'s Mot. (dkt. 2). The Sixth Amendment 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) authorizes a
district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas
petitioner whenever “the court determines that the
interests of justice so require.” In the present case,
the court finds that the interests of justice do not warrant
the appointment of counsel at this time because the issues
are not complex, and Petitioner has presented his claims
motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 2) is
DENIED. 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 counsel, 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 been transcribed
previously and that are relevant to a determination of the
issues presented by the Petition.
Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by
filing a traverse with the court and serving it on Respondent