Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05471/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05471-0/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)

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BYRON MCCORD FAIRBANKS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

COVELLO, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 19-05471 EJD (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; 

GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; DENYING MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

(Docket Nos. 3, 5) 

 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction.1 Petitioner has filed 

a motion for appointment of counsel, (Docket No. 3), and a motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, (Docket No. 5). 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Contra Costa County Superior Court of 

voluntary manslaughter. (Pet. at 1-2.) Petitioner was sentenced to 25 years to life on 

August 25, 2017. (Id. at 1.) 

 

1

 The matter was reassigned to this Court on October 7, 2019. (Docket No. 7.)

Case 5:19-cv-05471-EJD Document 9 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Petitioner appealed the matter to the state appellate and state high court, but without 

success. (Id. at 3.) 

 Petitioner filed this federal habeas action on August 30, 2019. 

 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

 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.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims 

Petitioner claims the following as grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) violation of 

due process and right to present a defense by the trial court’s refusal to allow a defense 

witness to testify; (2) jury instructional error; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. 

(Pet. at 5.) Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable under § 2254 and merit an 

answer from Respondent. 

C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 3.) 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.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). 

Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within the 

discretion of the district court. Id.; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). The petition filed in pro se is well-presented and clearly 

states his claims. (See Docket No. 1.) Furthermore, it does not appear that an evidentiary 

hearing is necessary at this stage of the proceedings, and there are no exceptional 

Case 5:19-cv-05471-EJD Document 9 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s 

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 

reconsideration should the Court later find an evidentiary hearing necessary following 

consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s claims. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. The Clerk shall serve by 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. 

 2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 

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 issued. 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. 

 If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with 

the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the 

answer. 

 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court 

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twentyeight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve 

on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded 

that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true 

copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all 

Case 5:19-cv-05471-EJD Document 9 Filed 12/05/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure 

to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

5. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time 

will be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 

6. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED for lack of 

exceptional circumstances. (Docket No. 3.) 

7. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

(Docket No. 5.) 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 3 and 5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order to Show Cause; Pending Motions 

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.19\05471Fairbanks_osc&ifp 

12/5/2019

Case 5:19-cv-05471-EJD Document 9 Filed 12/05/19 Page 4 of 4