Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03165/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03165-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

ANTOINE A. MACKEY,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN SOTO, Warden

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-03165-HSG (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND DENYING 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 5

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, an inmate at California State Prison – Los Angeles County in Lancaster (“CSPLancaster”), filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

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. Also before the Court 

are Petitioner’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2 and 5), and his 

motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 4). For the reasons stated below, Respondent is 

ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted; and Petitioner’s motions for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and for appointment of counsel are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The petition and attachments thereto provide the following information: In 2011, in a joint 

trial with his co-defendant in Alameda County Superior Court, Petitioner was convicted by a jury 

of two counts of first degree murder, with special circumstance findings of multiple murders on 

each of the murder convictions. Petitioner was also convicted of illegal possession of a firearm by 

a felon. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to two consecutive terms of life without the 

possibility of parole, consecutive to a determinate term of one year. Petitioner filed a direct appeal 

Case 4:15-cv-03165-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 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

in the California Court of Appeal. In 2015, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. 

Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which was 

denied on April 15, 2015. The instant action was filed on July 8, 2015.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

B. Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims: (1) the trial court erred in denying 

his motion to change venue; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the GPS 

tracking evidence; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance; (4) the trial court 

erred in instructing that Petitioner’s testimony could be used against both defendants without 

giving a corollary instruction that it could be used in their favor; (5) the trial court erred when it 

refused to give Petitioner’s requested instruction on third party culpability evidence with respect to 

Lewis’s testimony; (6) the instruction regarding Broussard’s shackling and custody status was 

prejudicial error; (7) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a 

limiting instruction with respect to Broussard’s guilty plea; (8) the trial court’s instructions 

allowed the jury to erroneously consider Broussard’s testimony without corroboration to convict 

Petitioner for the murder of Willis; and (9) cumulative error. Liberally construed, the claims 

appear arguably cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent. See Zichko v. 

Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs 

Case 4:15-cv-03165-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 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

of habeas corpus liberally).

C. Pending Motions

1. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Docket Nos. 2 

and 5. Petitioner has submitted a Certificate of Funds, signed by an authorized officer that 

indicates that Petitioner had an average monthly balance of $26.73 for the past six months and an 

average monthly deposit of $26.66 in his inmate trust account. See Docket No. 5 at 5 and 7. 

Thus, Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

2. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Petitioner has filed a motion to appoint counsel. See Docket No. 4. He argues that 

appointment of counsel is warranted because of the complexity of the issues, the law library 

policies at CSP-Lancaster, “present pressing matters,” and his lack of knowledge about the law. 

See id. at 1-3. 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. 1986). Unless an evidentiary hearing is 

required, the decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See 

Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). An evidentiary 

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

warrant appointment of counsel. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court is unable to 

determine whether the appointment of counsel is warranted. Accordingly, the interests of justice 

do not require appointment of counsel at this time, and Petitioner’s request 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 Petitioner’s claims. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED. See Docket Nos. 2 and 

5. Petitioner must pay the $5 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this order or face 

dismissal of this action for failure to pay the filing fee.

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Docket No. 4. 

Case 4:15-cv-03165-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 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

3. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to 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 Petitioner. 

4. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one (91)

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 

based on the claims found cognizable herein. 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-five (35) days of the date the answer is filed.

5. Respondent may file, within ninety-one (91) days, 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 twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is filed.

6. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 

Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must 

keep the Court informed of any change of address and 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

//

//

//

Case 4:15-cv-03165-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 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

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 4 and 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/30/2015

Case 4:15-cv-03165-HSG Document 6 Filed 10/30/15 Page 5 of 5