Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01260/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01260-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON PEREZ ZAPATA,

Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01260-SAB-HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 3)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner challenges his 2013 convictions sustained in the Madera County Superior 

Court for multiple sex offenses. Petitioner was sentenced to an imprisonment term of thirty-nine 

years to life. Petitioner alleges that: (1) the trial court failed to undertake the requisite Marsden

inquiry; (2) the trial court erroneously restricted cross-examination; and (3) Petitioner was 

convicted on the basis of an unlawful confession.

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Exhaustion

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

Case 1:16-cv-01260-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 09/07/16 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

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” A petitioner in state custody who is 

proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the 

state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s alleged constitutional deprivations. 

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A 

petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full 

and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. 

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. 

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 

If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot 

proceed to the merits of those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The Court must dismiss without 

prejudice a “mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims to give a 

petitioner an opportunity to exhaust the claims if he can do so. See Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522. 

However, a petitioner may, at his option, withdraw the unexhausted claims and go forward with 

the exhausted claims. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict 

courts must provide habeas litigants with the opportunity to amend their mixed petitions by 

striking unexhausted claims as an alternative to suffering dismissal.”). A petitioner may also 

move to withdraw the entire petition and return to federal court when he has finally exhausted his 

state court remedies.1 A petitioner may also move to stay and hold in abeyance the petition while 

he exhausts his claims in state court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); Kelly v. 

Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2002).

In the instant petition, Petitioner acknowledges that he raises some claims that are 

unexhausted. (ECF No. 1 at 5). Upon review of the petition and the attachments, it appears 

claims 2 and 3 are unexhausted. 

///

 

1 Although the limitations period tolls while a properly filed request for collateral review is pending in state court, 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), it does not toll for the time a federal habeas petition is pending in federal court. Duncan v. 

Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–82 (2001). 

Case 1:16-cv-01260-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 09/07/16 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

B. Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3). There currently exists no 

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 

F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 

However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 

proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3006A(a)(2)(B). See also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether 

to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 

ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he does not speak English, he 

cannot afford to obtain counsel, he lacks education regarding the law, and has limited access to 

legal research because the prison library does not have Spanish materials. Upon review of the 

petition, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and the instant motion for appointment of counsel, 

the Court finds that with the assistance of a fellow inmate, Petitioner appears to have a sufficient 

grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to articulate those claims 

adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not 

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the 

appointment of counsel at the present time.

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within THIRTY (30) days from the date 

of service of this order why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 

state remedies; and

2. The motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice.

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-01260-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 09/07/16 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

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in dismissal of the 

petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s failure to prosecute or 

to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01260-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 4