Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07169/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07169-1/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PHILIP LEO SANDS,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH DIAZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-07169-VKD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Petitioner Philip Leo Sands, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state court conviction out of San 

Francisco County Superior Court.

1

 Mr. Sands has paid the filing fee. Dkt. No. 11. 

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. 

Federal courts have a duty to construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally. 

Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). 

///

 

1 This case was transferred from the Eastern District of California. Dkt. No. 6. Mr. Sands 

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 10.

Case 5:19-cv-07169-VKD Document 13 Filed 12/19/19 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 California

II. DISCUSSION

Before bringing this action, Mr. Sands filed a state habeas petition raising the sole claim 

that trial counsel was ineffective in advising him to reject the prosecution’s plea offer and instead 

to proceed to trial. Dkt. No. 1 at 16. The state appellate court found Mr. Sands had articulated a 

prima facie case for relief and issued an order to show cause for further proceedings in San 

Francisco County Superior Court. Id. at 16-17. The state superior court ultimately rejected the 

claim on the merits and denied Mr. Sands’ request for an evidentiary hearing as unnecessary. Id.

at 70–73. Mr. Sands pursued habeas petitions in the state appellate and high courts, which both 

summarily denied the petition. Id. at 95, 97. 

In the instant federal habeas action, Mr. Sands asserts that his right to due process was 

violated by the state court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing before rejecting his claim. Id. at 

7. In asserting a due process violation, Mr. Sands relies on Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 

(1963), which sets forth the standard for a district court to review a request for an evidentiary 

hearing in a federal habeas action in order to receive evidence that was not before the state courts. 

Accordingly, Townsend only applies to habeas proceedings in federal court, and does not establish 

a due process right to an evidentiary hearing in state court. 

Rather, a district court may grant a petition challenging a state conviction or sentence on 

the basis of a claim that was “adjudicated on the merits” in state court only if the state court’s 

adjudication of the claim: “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court 

of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination 

of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

Accordingly, any procedural error in the state court, such as a failure to hold an evidentiary 

hearing, is not determinative of Mr. Sands’s entitlement to relief in this case. Rather, the Court’s 

task on federal habeas review is to review the reasonableness of the state court’s decision in 

ultimately rejecting the underlying claim. Id. Liberally construed, the underlying claim that trial 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance with respect to the plea offer is cognizable under § 2254 

and merits an answer from respondent Ralph Diaz. 

Case 5:19-cv-07169-VKD Document 13 Filed 12/19/19 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 California

Mr. Sands filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel based on his imprisonment, 

indigency, and being a “layman to the law.” Dkt. No. 2 at 6. 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. See id. at 728; Bashor v. 

Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). An evidentiary hearing 

does not appear necessary at this time, and there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant 

appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Mr. Sands’s motion for appointment of counsel, (Docket 

No. 2), 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 his claims. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and 

all attachments thereto, on Mr. Diaz and his attorney, the Attorney General of the State of 

California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Mr. Sands. 

2. Mr. Diaz shall file with the court and serve on Mr. Sands, within 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. Mr. Diaz

shall file with the answer and serve on Mr. Sands a copy of all portions of the state court trial 

record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues 

presented by the petition. 

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

Court and serving it on Mr. Diaz within 30 days of his receipt of the answer. 

3. Mr. Diaz 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 Mr. Diaz files such a motion, Mr. Sands shall file with the Court and serve on Mr. Diaz

an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days of receipt of the motion, and Mr. 

Diaz shall file with the court and serve on Mr. Sands a reply within 14 days of receipt of any 

Case 5:19-cv-07169-VKD Document 13 Filed 12/19/19 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 California

opposition.

4. Mr. Sands has the responsibility to prosecute this case. Mr. Sands is reminded that 

all documents and communications with the Court must be served on Mr. Diaz by mailing a true 

copy of the document or communication to Mr. Diaz’s counsel. Mr. Sands must keep the Court 

and all 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07169-VKD Document 13 Filed 12/19/19 Page 4 of 4