Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00871/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00871-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254dp Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Death Penalty)

---

1 

16cv0871 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CLEOPHUS PRINCE, 

Petitioner,

v. 

RONALD DAVIS, Warden of San 

Quentin State Prison 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 16cv0871 BAS (KSC) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 

(2) REFERRING MATTER TO 

SELECTION BOARD FOR 

SUGGESTION OF APPOINTED 

COUNSEL, AND; 

(3) DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE 

TO CORRECT DOCKET 

On April 11, 2016, Petitioner Cleophus Prince filed a request for appointment of 

counsel for federal habeas proceedings and an accompanying declaration. (ECF No. 2.) 

Petitioner also filed a civil cover sheet which was docketed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court 

GRANTS the request, REFERS the matter to the Selection Board for the Southern District 

of California for the recommendation of one or more attorneys for appointment, and 

DIRECTS the Clerk to correct the docket as detailed below. 

Case 3:16-cv-00871-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

16cv0871 

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

I. BACKGROUND

 Petitioner was convicted in San Diego County Superior Court of six counts of first 

degree murder with the special circumstances of rape-murder and multiple-murder, five 

counts of burglary, one count of rape, and several other non-capital offenses, and was 

sentenced to death. On April 30, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the 

convictions and sentence on direct appeal. People v. Prince, 40 Cal. 4th 1179 (2007). The 

petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on January 

8, 2007. Prince Jr., Cleophus v. California, 552 U.S. 1106, 128 S. Ct. 887 (2008). 

 On August 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a habeas petition (Case No. S155510) with the 

California Supreme Court, and on July 27, 2001, Petitioner filed an amended petition 

accompanied by declarations and exhibits. An informal response was filed on October 15, 

2012, and a reply was filed on September 23, 2013. The California Supreme Court has not 

yet ruled on the state habeas petition. 

II. DISCUSSION

 In a signed declaration dated April 6, 2016, Petitioner states that his state habeas 

petition is fully briefed “unless and until the court issues an order to show cause or orders 

supplemental briefing,” but that “[t]he court may issue a summary denial at any time which 

is final immediately,” and “[a]t that point, the time for seeking federal review will begin 

running.” (ECF No. 2-1 at 2.) Petitioner states that: “I am submitting a request for counsel 

now in anticipation of this contingency,” and asserts that if his state petition is denied, he 

intends to file a federal habeas petition and needs the assistance of counsel to prepare and 

litigate a federal petition. (Id.) Petitioner also indicates that both his state appellate counsel 

and his state habeas counsel have advised Petitioner that they are unavailable to represent 

him in federal habeas proceedings and states that: “I am indigent and do not have the assets 

to retain an attorney to represent me in these proceedings.” (Id.) 

 The Ninth Circuit has held that “when . . . an appeal of a state criminal conviction is 

pending, a would-be petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state 

remedies are exhausted.” Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983); see 

Case 3:16-cv-00871-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

16cv0871 

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

also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). As noted above, Petitioner’s direct appeal is long concluded, 

as the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in 2008. While 

Petitioner’s state habeas petition remains pending before the California Supreme Court, the 

Ninth Circuit has clarified that Sherwood applies only to pending direct appeals. See 

Henderson v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 872, 874 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting district court’s reliance 

on Sherwood to dismiss federal habeas action filed while state habeas petition was pending 

without allowing leave to amend or considering a stay, stating that “Sherwood stands for 

the proposition that a district court may not adjudicate a federal petition while a petitioner’s 

direct state appeal is pending.”) 

 The Court is aware that in prior capital habeas actions in this district, as well as in 

other California federal district courts, the process of locating qualified prospective counsel 

to recommend for appointment may take a substantial amount of time. (See e.g. Jurado v. 

Davis, S.D. Cal. Case No. 08cv1400-JLS-JMA, ECF Nos. 1, 23 (over eight months 

between request for, and appointment of, counsel), Hoyos v. Cullen, S.D. Cal. Case No. 

09cv0388-L-NLS, ECF Nos. 1, 12 (over seven months between request and appointment), 

Ramos v. Chappell, 3-05-cv-3752-SI, 2013 WL 3815644, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2013) 

(collecting cases).) The relevant federal statute, which provides for the appointment of 

counsel in capital habeas actions, simply states that: “In any post conviction proceeding 

under section 2254 or 2255 of title 28, United States Code, seeking to vacate or set aside a 

death sentence, any defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate 

representation or investigative, expert, or other reasonably necessary services shall be 

entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys and the furnishing of such other 

services in accordance with subsections (b) through (f).” 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). 

Meanwhile, this district’s local rules provide for the appointment of federal habeas counsel 

“at the earliest practicable time.” See CivLR HC.3(d)(1). Based on these considerations, 

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel appears reasonable and is therefore 

GRANTED. 

/// 

Case 3:16-cv-00871-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

16cv0871 

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

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Pursuant to Local Rule HC.3(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 3599, Petitioner’s request for 

appointment of counsel is GRANTED, and it is HEREBY ORDERED that this matter be 

referred to the Selection Board for the United States District Court, Southern District of 

California, for suggestion of one or more counsel to be appointed to represent Petitioner in 

his federal habeas corpus proceedings. 

 The Clerk is also DIRECTED to correct the docket to properly reflect (1) that the 

request for appointment of counsel is the initiating event in the instant proceeding and (2) 

that the civil cover sheet is a cover sheet, and is not a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

See Calderon v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 98 F.3d 

1102, 1107 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Unlike non-capital prisoners who initiate habeas 

proceedings by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, capital prisoners commence 

habeas proceedings by filing a request for appointment of counsel.”), citing Mc Farland v. 

Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994); see also CivLR 3.1 (“For administrative purposes only, every 

complaint, petition or other paper initiating a civil action or proceeding must be 

accompanied by a civil cover sheet . . .”) (emphasis added). 

 The Clerk of the Court shall serve a certified copy of this order on Petitioner 

Cleophus Prince; Attorney Mark E. Cutler; Attorney Gary B. Wells; Respondent Ron 

Davis, Warden of San Quentin Prison; the Clerk of the San Diego County Superior Court; 

Kamala Harris, Attorney General of the State of California; Quisteen S. Shum, Deputy 

Attorney General of the State of California; Office of the District Attorney of San Diego 

County; Joe Schlesinger, California Appellate Project, San Francisco; and Elaine 

Alexander, Appellate Defenders, Inc. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 19, 2016 

 ______________________________ 

 Hon. Cynthia Bashant 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-00871-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4