Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00960/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00960-0/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

No. C 10-0960 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 03/17/2010*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ROGER MAX KELLER,

Petitioner,

v.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0960 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

DENYING MOTION FOR THE

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Roger Max Keller, a state prisoner at Soledad State Prison, filed this pro se

action for 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. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted in 1989 of second degree murder,

and was sentenced to fifteen years to life. In December 2008, the Board of Parole Hearings

found petitioner unsuitable for parole. In response to the Board’s decision petitioner sought,

and was later denied, state habeas relief. This federal habeas petition followed. 

Case 3:10-cv-00960-RS Document 4 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 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

No. C 10-0960 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that the Board’s decision

violated his right to due process because (1) it was not supported by some evidence of

petitioner’s current dangerousness; (2) the Board relied again on the unchanging factors of

the commitment offense; and (3) petitioner has served in excess of the term set by

California’s sentencing matrix. Liberally construed, the claims appear to be cognizable in a

federal habeas action. 

MOTIONS

Petitioner has requested to proceed in forma pauperis, and has filed a completed

application for such status. (See Docket No. 3.) Good cause appearing therefor, petitioner’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

Petitioner also moves for the appointment of counsel. (See Pet., App. A at 17.) There

is no right to counsel in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,

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

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. 

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), and should be granted only when exceptional

Case 3:10-cv-00960-RS Document 4 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 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

No. C 10-0960 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 3

circumstances are present. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus

Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383–86 (2d ed. 1994). Petitioner has not shown that there

are exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, petitioner’s

motion is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

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

attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the

State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, 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 petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have

been transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition. 

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

5. 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. 

Case 3:10-cv-00960-RS Document 4 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 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

No. C 10-0960 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 4

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

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.

8. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Petitioner’s

motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00960-RS Document 4 Filed 03/17/10 Page 4 of 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

No. C 10-0960 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Roger Max Keller 

Prisoner Id. # E26344 

Correctional Training Facility 

P.O. Box 689 

Soledad, CA 93960 

DATED: 03/17/2010 

/s/ Chambers Staff 

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who have not

registered with the Court’s electronic filing system.

Case 3:10-cv-00960-RS Document 4 Filed 03/17/10 Page 5 of 5