Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01168/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01168-1/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

Order Re-opening Case; Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration Without Prejudice; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168reopen 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY WAYNE ROAM, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 vs. )

)

)

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden, )

)

)

Respondent. ) ____________________________________

C 03-1168 JF (PR)

ORDER RE-OPENING CASE;

DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

(Docket No. 35)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 15, 2004, the Court ordered

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. On March 25, 2005,

Respondent filed an answer on the merits. Petitioner then filed a letter with the Court

requesting leave to file a supplemental brief and include four new claims in his pending

habeas action. On June 7, 2005, the Court denied the request without prejudice and

directed Petitioner to file a motion to stay the instant petition while he exhausted his

additional claims in state court, or to notify the Court within thirty days that he did not

want to pursue the motion to stay. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to stay the

instant petition and Respondent filed an opposition. 

**Original filed 8/2/06**

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 36 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Order Re-opening Case; Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration Without Prejudice; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168reopen 2

During this period, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition on May 24, 2005 in the

California Supreme Court. On March 28, 2006 the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to

stay the petition and administratively closed this action in order for Petitioner to exhaust

his remaining claims in state court. 

On June 12, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend the petition, an 

amended petition and a motion for reconsideration requesting that the Court’s appoint

counsel for Petitioner. Petitioner submitted a copy of the California Supreme Court’s

summary denial of his state habeas petition, filed on May 17, 2006. Accordingly, the

Court will RE-OPEN the instant action and order Respondent to show cause why the

amended petition should not be granted. Respondent also may file a response to

Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend and address the propriety of the amendment to

the petition. The Court will DENY Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (docket no.

35) without prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

A Santa Clara Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of evading the police

(Cal. Veh. Code § 2800.2). On July 7, 2000, Petitioner received a sentence of twentyseven years-to-life in state prison. Petitioner appealed his conviction. The state

appellate court affirmed the judgment in 2002. The state supreme court denied a

petition for review in 2002. Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition on March 18, 2003. 

On March 28, 2006, the Court stayed the petition and granted petitioner’s motion to stay

this action while he exhausted his claims in state court. Petitioner filed a state habeas

petition in the state supreme court, which was denied summarily on May 17, 2006. 

Thereafter, on June 12, 2006, petitioner filed an amended petition in this Court. 

DISCUSSION

A. The Merits

1. Standard of Review

A district 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

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 36 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 7
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 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 832 (1975).

Order Re-opening Case; Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration Without Prejudice; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168reopen 3

in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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. 

2. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1) Petitioner’s

Faretta1

 motion was denied; (2) his plea agreement contract made in his prior

convictions was broken by the use of these prior convictions to enhance his sentence

under California’s “three strikes” law; (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel by

not raising issue on appeal that the use of traffic tickets petitioner never received, nor

was found guilty of, to find him guilty of commitment offense violated due process; (4)

ineffective assistance of trial counsel and violation of petitioner’s right to conflict-free

counsel in counsel’s false remarks during opening statements and counsel’s failure to:

request a jury instruction, seek a redaction of the government’s exhibit that revealed

Petitioner suffered three prior convictions for driving under the influence, object to

inadmissible evidence of Petitioner’s involvement in a fight with security personnel at

the time of his arrest, request a limiting instruction regarding his prior traffic violations,

obtain a jury instruction regarding Petitioner’s shouting out comments during the trial,

and object that Petitioner’s sentence of twenty-seven years-to-life constituted cruel and

unusual punishment; (5) the failure to instruct on the element of the offense, that the

three traffic violations had to involve the unsafe operation of a vehicle, violated

Petitioner’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (6) the

trial court’s failure to allow the jury to adjudicate whether Petitioner’s prior convictions

qualified as serious felony convictions violated his rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2001); (7) the trial judge was bias against Petitioner in violation of his

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 36 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 7
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

Order Re-opening Case; Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration Without Prejudice; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168reopen 4

right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (8) the jury

erroneously heard evidence that Petitioner committed traffic violations which were

unrelated to the current charges in violation of his right to due process under the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments; and (9) ineffective assistance of trial counsel by counsel’s

failure to request an instruction regarding Petitioner’s wearing jail clothing. Liberally

construed, Petitioner’s claims are sufficient to require a response. Respondent shall

show cause why the amended petition should not be granted.

B. Motion for Reconsideration

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order

denying appointment of counsel. In his motion, Petitioner requests that the Court

appoint counsel due to the complexity of the instant case. See Pet.’s Mot at 1.

As set forth in the Court’s previous order, the Sixth Amendment’s right to

counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,

728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes appointment of

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.” 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);

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

denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). 

 The Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require appointment of

counsel at this time. The issues before the Court remain relatively straightforward,

Petitioner has aptly presented his claims, and no evidentiary hearing appears necessary. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to appoint counsel (docket no. 35)

is DENIED without prejudice.

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 36 Filed 08/02/06 Page 4 of 7
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

Order Re-opening Case; Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration Without Prejudice; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168reopen 5

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (docket no. 35) is DENIED 

without prejudice. 

2. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the amended 

petition, filed on June 12, 2006, 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 the Petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty

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. 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 a copy on Respondent within thirty days of his receipt of the

answer.

4. Respondent may file 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. Respondent also may respond to Petitioner’s motion for

leave to amend the petition and address the propriety of the amendment of Petitioner’s

additional claims. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the court

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty

days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper

captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a

timely fashion. 

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 36 Filed 08/02/06 Page 5 of 7
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

Order Re-opening Case; Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration Without Prejudice; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168reopen 6

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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

8/2/06 /S/electronic signature authorized

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 36 Filed 08/02/06 Page 6 of 7
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

Order Re-opening Case; Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration Without Prejudice; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168reopen 7

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Jeffrey Wayne Roam

C-80656 

High Desert State Prison

P.O. Box 3030

Susanville, CA 96127-3030

Violet M. Lee 

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 110000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 36 Filed 08/02/06 Page 7 of 7