Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00005/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK M. LOWE,

Petitioner,

v.

JIMMY WALKER, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-005 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Mark M. Lowe, an inmate at the California State Prison - Sacramento, filed this pro se

action for 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. His in forma pauperis application and motion for appointment of counsel also are before

the court.

BACKGROUND

Lowe states in his petition that he was convicted in Contra Costa County Superior Court

of numerous sex offenses against children and was sentenced to 585 years to life in prison. His

conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal and his petition for review was

denied by the California Supreme Court. He then filed this action.

Case 3:08-cv-00005-SI Document 5 Filed 04/07/08 Page 1 of 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

2

DISCUSSION

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). 

The petition asserts four claims: (1) the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand

trial, (2) Lowe's right to due process was violated by the admission of evidence concerning the

child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, (3) his attorney provided ineffective assistance

of counsel in failing to object to the admission of expert testimony on child sexual abuse

accommodation syndrome, and (4) his Sixth Amendment rights under Cunningham v. California,

127 S. Ct. 856, 863-64 (2007) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), were violated

by the imposition of upper term sentences on counts 5 and 41. Liberally construed, the four

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

Lowe has moved for appointment of counsel 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). 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). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. Based

on the materials in the court file, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is required in

this action to prevent a due process violation. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Case 3:08-cv-00005-SI Document 5 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 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

3

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

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

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before May 9, 2008, 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. 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 petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before June 13, 2008.

5. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2.) 

6. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 3.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 7, 2008 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00005-SI Document 5 Filed 04/07/08 Page 3 of 3