Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01686/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01686-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

MARK ANTHONY KENNEDY,

Petitioner,

v.

J. GASTELLO,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-01686-LB 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3 ]

INTRODUCTION

Mark Anthony Kennedy, a California prisoner housed at the California Men’s Colony in San 

Luis Obispo, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

He consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 4.)1 His petition is now before the 

court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts. This order requires the respondent to respond to the 

petition, grants the in forma pauperis application and denies the request for counsel.

 

1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents.

Case 4:16-cv-01686-YGR Document 5 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 5
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

STATEMENT

Mr. Kennedy’s petition and attachments provide the following information: He was convicted 

in San Francisco County Superior Court of “assaulting, battering and falsely imprisoning Lester 

Chow with great bodily injury enhancements.” (ECF No. 1-5 at 5.) Mr. Kennedy was sentenced on 

November 16, 2012 to sixteen years in state prison.

He appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed Mr. Kennedy’s conviction in 2014 and 

the California Supreme Court denied review in 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) He then filed this action.

ANALYSIS

This court may entertain a petition for 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). A district court 

considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

The petition alleges the following claims: (1) Mr. Kennedy’s right to due process was violated 

when the prosecutor relied on perjured testimony to obtain a conviction; (2)Mr. Kennedy’s right to 

due process and to present a defense was violated by the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the 

defense-of-others doctrine; and (3) Mr. Kennedy’s right to due process was violated because the 

evidence was insufficient to support the sentence enhancement for great bodily injury. Liberally 

construed, the claims are cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant a response.

Mr. Kennedy requests that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district court 

may appoint 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. 18 

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Appointment of counsel is required when there will be an evidentiary 

hearing. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). The decision to appoint 

counsel otherwise generally is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 

F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a 

particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See 

Case 4:16-cv-01686-YGR Document 5 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 5
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

id. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this action. An evidentiary 

hearing does not appear necessary at this time; if one does become necessary later, the court will 

appoint counsel on its own motion. Mr. Kennedy’s claims for federal habeas relief have been 

adequately presented, and were briefed on direct appeal by counsel. See Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 

1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (although petitioner had no background in law, denial of appointment 

of counsel was within discretion of district court where petitioner adequately presented issues in 

petition and accompanying memorandum. The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

(ECF No. 3.)

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition warrants a response. 

2. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto 

upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California.

The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 

3. The respondent must file and serve upon the petitioner, on or before July 15, 2016, 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. The respondent must file with the answer 

a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are 

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

4. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the 

court and serving it on the respondent on or before August 12, 2016. 

5. The petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. The petitioner must promptly keep 

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 

fashion.

6. The petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 

case on the first page of any document he submits to the court for consideration in this case.

7. The petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (ECF No. 2.) 

Case 4:16-cv-01686-YGR Document 5 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 5
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

8. The petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (ECF No. 3.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-01686-YGR Document 5 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

MARK ANTHONY KENNEDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. GASTELLO,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cv-01686-LB 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 29, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Mark Anthony Kennedy

California Mens Colony East Cell 5388

PO Box 8101

San Luis Obispo, CA 93409 

Dated: April 29, 2016 Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable LAUREL BEELER

Case 4:16-cv-01686-YGR Document 5 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 5