Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07409/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07409-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

TARAY T. MORRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

TONY MALFI, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-7409 SI (pr)

ORDER (1) APPOINTING COUNSEL

FOR PETITIONER AND (2) FOR

SCHEDULING

A. Appointment Of Attorney Luban to Represent Petitioner

Taray T. Morris filed this action pro se, seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The court issued an Order On Initial Review And Appointing Counsel, referring

the matter to the Federal Public Defender's Office to find counsel to represent petitioner.

Attorney Suzanne A. Luban has been identified as the attorney who will represent Morris.

Accordingly, the court now appoints attorney Suzanne A. Luban as counsel to represent

petitioner in this action See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. The appointment is effective as of June 1, 2007.

Counsel should seek reimbursement from the Federal Public Defender's Office in San Francisco

in accord with 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d) and (e). 

B. The Need For A Case Management Conference

The court decided that counsel was needed to represent Morris in light of some alarming

information in the petition, i.e., the allegations/intimations that Morris received a sentence of life

imprisonment for possession of a weapon in prison (as that would be greatly in excess of that

provided for in California Penal Code § 4502), that he was convicted while incompetent, and

Case 3:06-cv-07409-SI Document 10 Filed 06/29/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

that he was completely denied counsel. After issuing that order, the court searched on Westlaw

and PACER (i.e., the electronic records of federal court docket sheets), and found some

information that puts Morris' habeas action in a much less compelling light. 

Morris apparently has an extensive criminal history and is already in prison for the rest

of his life regardless of what happens here. He is serving a sentence of life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole plus 25 years to life (for first degree murder with the special

circumstance that the murder was committed during an attempted robbery, attempted second

degree murder) consecutive to a sentence of 95 years to life imprisonment (for carjacking,

possession of a firearm, evading an officer, unlawful driving or taking a vehicle with two prior

convictions). See People v. Morris, 2002 WL 471334 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002); People v. Morris,

2002 WL 454289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). Morris' federal habeas petition challenging the

murder/robbery convictions was denied in 2004 and not appealed, see Morris v. Lamarque, C.

D. Cal. No. CV 03-4093-GMK, and it does not appear that a federal habeas petition was filed

for the other convictions. These lengthy sentences that have been upheld mean that success in

this action almost certainly would not mean freedom or any real change in the length of time

Morris remains in custody. The decisions cited also are quite revealing in that none of them

raise incompetency claims, although one of the state actions makes reference to head injuries

suffered by Morris. It also appears that Morris may have filed a separate federal petition that

tried to challenge the propriety of the involuntary medication order, although the record is not

very clear on that. See March 14, 2007 Order Dismissing Action in Morris v. State of

California, C. D. Cal. No. CV 06-7992-GMK ("The Court was not clear as to what Petitioner

was trying to accomplish with the filing, i.e., whether he was challenging his confinement per

se, or the state's administration of psychotropic medications, or something else.") This

information causes the court concern about the accuracy of certain allegations in Morris' petition

– which the court recognizes was prepared pro se and not by newly appointed attorney Luban

– as well as the reasonableness of any wide-ranging inquiry into Morris' competency.

Case 3:06-cv-07409-SI Document 10 Filed 06/29/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 In addition to the foregoing, certain federal habeas rules cause the court some concern

whether inquiry into petitioner's competence is an appropriate step at this point. A petitioner

must exhaust state court remedies as to any claims he presents in federal habeas, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b), and appointment under § 3006A does not include funding to return to state court to

present claims there. See generally In re Lindsey, 875 F.2d 1502, 1506-07 (11th Cir. 1989). A

petitioner also generally should have developed the factual basis of his claim in state court

before he gets to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). A federal habeas action usually is

not the place for a petitioner to start investigating and developing his factual presentation.

A case management conference will be set for this action. The parties (through counsel)

must prepare a joint case management conference statement and file it no less than five days

before the conference. The statement should include the following information: (1) whether

petitioner intends to amend the petition and, if so, a proposed briefing schedule for the motion

to amend, (2) whether respondent intends to file any motion to dismiss or other procedural

motion and, if so, a proposed briefing schedule for the motion, (3) whether and what discovery

is contemplated, and (4) whether the parties can stipulate to any of these matters. 

No later than five days before the conference, respondent shall file and serve (1) a copy

of the briefs filed in Morris' state habeas cases in the California Court of Appeal and the

California Supreme Court challenging his 2004 prisoner-with-a-weapon conviction, (2) a copy

of the abstract of judgment for that conviction, (3) the transcript of the plea colloquy, if any was

prepared, and (4) any documentation that may indicate whether an attorney was ever appointed

to represent petitioner in the action. The court has imposed this production duty on respondent

rather than petitioner's counsel because respondent's counsel has easier access to the materials

requested.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-07409-SI Document 10 Filed 06/29/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C. Scheduling And Miscellany

1. A case management conference will be held in this action at 2:00 p.m. on July 27,

2007. Petitioner need not be present at the conference. 

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

3. The clerk will send a copy of this order to attorney Luban and the Federal Public

Defender's Office in San Francisco.

4. The clerk will send a copy of the contents of this case file and a copy of this order

to Deputy Attorney General Juliet Haley at the California Attorney General's office at 455

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. (Attorney Haley has informed court staff that

she will represent respondent or forward the case to another appropriate attorney in the office

to represent respondent.)

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 6/29/07 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07409-SI Document 10 Filed 06/29/07 Page 4 of 4