Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01695-2/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALONSO McKINNEY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

G. NEWSOM, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:19-cv-1695-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. ECF No. 1. Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and appointment of 

counsel. ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10. For the reasons that follow, the request to proceed in forma 

pauperis is granted, the request for appointment of counsel is denied, and the petition is dismissed 

with leave to amend. 

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and the trust account statement 

submitted by his institution of incarceration make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Accordingly, the application is granted. 

II. Motion to Appoint Counsel 

Petitioner has not however, shown that appointment of counsel is warranted. There currently 

exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 

Case 2:19-cv-01695-JAM-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings 

“if the interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases. The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by 

the appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings. 

III. Background 

The petition does not set forth sufficient facts from which the court can discern the 

background of the case. He has used the court’s form for habeas petitions brought under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 by prisoners in federal custody, although he is in state custody. ECF No. 1. He 

writes that he is challenging a case in which a jury found him not guilty. Id. at 2. Some pages of 

the petition indicate petitioner’s desire to file a “federal tort claim,” but petitioner does not place 

this tort claim in any factual context. Id. at 6-7. The most substantive statement in the petition is: 

Statement of claim: Attorney Elizabeth Horowitz, filed claim during 2016, year 

and after. The courts verify found not guilty. Please note, I filed several claim 

after new billed passed. No reply, also claim is pursuant to 911.4 to 912.2 and 

S.B. 1134 retroactive to above. I was found not guilty on Case No. 021728 and 

B269397 2nd appellate court [sic all]. 

Id. at 10. 

IV. Legal Standards 

United States District Courts have authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to grant petitions for 

writ of habeas corpus to federal prisoners “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). The court should award the writ or issue an 

order to 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” to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

If it appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court may dismiss the petition. Ruby v. 

United States, 341 F.2d 585, 586-87 (9th Cir. 1965). 

V. Screening Order 

Although petitioner has filed on the court’s § 2241 form, § 2241 does not appear to be the 

appropriate vehicle for his claim, as he is not in federal custody. The petition is so 

incomprehensible that the court cannot understand whether petitioner wishes to pursue habeas 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (appropriate for state prisoners), to file a civil rights claim under 42 

Case 2:19-cv-01695-JAM-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

U.S.C. § 1983 against some state official(s), or to file some sort of tort claim. From the 

unintelligible facts alleged by petitioner, the court cannot discern any cognizable federal claim. 

For this reason, the petition must be dismissed. Petitioner will be granted leave to file an 

amended petition alleging specific facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief and clearly 

indicating the relief sought. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 7, 10) is GRANTED; 

2. The motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice; 

and 

3. The petition is dismissed with leave to file an amended petition within 30 days from 

the date of service of this order. If petitioner elects not to file an amended petition, the 

undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed for failure to state a 

cognizable claim. 

So ordered. 

DATED: April 3, 2020. 

 

Case 2:19-cv-01695-JAM-EFB Document 11 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 3