Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03254/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03254-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACY D. LANGLEY

Petitioner,

 vs.

THOMAS L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3254 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket Nos. 2, 4)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at California

State Prison-Solano in Vacaville, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. Petitioner

has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is now GRANTED (docket no. 4). 

This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

Petitioner has also filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel (docket no. 2). The

motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth below (docket no. 2).

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted after trial in San Francisco

County Superior Court of voluntary manslaughter and personal use of a weapon. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal which denied the

appeal in 2005. The Supreme Court of California denied his petition for review in 2005. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on May 17, 2006. 

Case 3:06-cv-03254-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 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 2

DISCUSSION

I 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. 

II Legal Claims

The petition raises the following ground for relief: (1) the trial court violated

Petitioner’s due process rights by incorrectly instructing the jury regarding voluntary

intoxication; and (2) Petitioner’s sentence violated Petitioner’s rights under Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Liberally construed, it does not appear from the face

of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, Respondent is ordered

to respond to the petition as set forth below.

III. Motion for Counsel

Petitioner also filed a motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 2). 

Petitioner requests that counsel be appointed because he is illiterate and required the

assistance of other inmates to file his petition. However, the Sixth Amendment’s right to

counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,

728 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes appointment of counsel to

represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice

so require and such person is financially unable to obtain representation.” 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), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Knaubert, 791 F.2d

at 728.

Case 3:06-cv-03254-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 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 3

 Here, no evidentiary hearing appears necessary at this time and, while Petitioner

maintains that he is unlearned in the law, the issues are adequately presented in the

petition. The Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require appointment of

counsel at this time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel

(docket no. 2) is DENIED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified 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 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. 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 thirty (30)

days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

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

the Court 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. 

Case 3:06-cv-03254-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/16/06 Page 3 of 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 4

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)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2006 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03254-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/16/06 Page 4 of 4