Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06227/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN MANUEL ANDAZOLA,

Petitioner, No. C 07-6227 PJH

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

AND TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Petitioner Juan Manuel Andazola (“Andazola”), a state prisoner, has filed a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2003, Andazola was convicted by a jury in the Contra Costa

County Superior Court of attempted murder and assault with a firearm. On December 5,

2003, the trial court sentenced Andazola to life with the possibility of parole and an

additional consecutive sentence of twenty-five years to life for the firearm enhancement. 

Andazola filed a direct appeal and sought habeas relief in the California appellate courts. 

The California Court of Appeal denied habeas relief, and affirmed on February 22, 2006. 

The California Supreme Court subsequently denied review on June 14, 2006, and denied

habeas relief on February 14, 2007. Andazola filed the instant petition for federal habeas

relief on December 10, 2007.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

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. §

Case 4:07-cv-06227-PJH Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2254(a). It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims

Petitioner raises four claims for federal habeas relief: (1) that he was denied due

process because there was insufficient evidence that he was the shooter; (2) that he was

denied due process because there was insufficient evidence that he acted with

premeditation and deliberation; (3) that the trial court’s refusal to give one of his proffered

“pinpoint” jury instructions violated his due process rights and his right to present a

defense; and (4) that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment evidence regarding an

investigating and testifying police officer in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth

amendments. Liberally construed, the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

and merit an answer from respondent.

C. Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel

The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 

See 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.” 

Generally, the decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See

Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). The purpose of section 3006A is to

provide for appointed counsel whenever the failure to do so would amount to a denial of

due process. Id. Accordingly, in determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court

should weigh the ability of a pro se petitioner to present forcefully and coherently his or her

contentions based on a good understanding of the issues. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d

622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). 

The court finds that the claims raised in the present petition are not complex. 

Additionally, the court is unable to determine, at this time, whether petitioner can

Case 4:07-cv-06227-PJH Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

adequately represent himself, as an attorney drafted his petition. Because of the foregoing

and the fact that the court finds the present petition to satisfactorily advance petitioner’s

claims for relief, the court DENIES the request for appointment of counsel.

Additionally, petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED based on

the certification of funds submitted in conjunction with the request.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner is ordered to pay the filing fee required in habeas cases.

2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and

all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner.

3. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date 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

issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions

of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by

the petition.

4. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

 traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer.

Dated: December 19, 2007 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-06227-PJH Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3