Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02574/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02574-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AYANNA Z. GREEN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

GLORIA HENRY, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2574 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket nos. 2, 3, 4, 7)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the state of California, has filed a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of her state conviction. 

Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This order directs Respondent to show

cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Santa Clara County

Superior Court of first degree murder and the personal use of a firearm. On August 7, 1998, she

was sentenced to twenty-five years-to-life plus ten years in state prison. Petitioner appealed her

conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction in 2001, and to the

Supreme Court of California, which denied Petitioner's petition for review, also in 2001. 

On December 18, 2003, Petitioner sent a document to this Court requesting an extension

of time. The request was broadly construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and was

filed as such. See Green v. Henry, C 03-5622 JSW. On April 22, 2004, this Court issued an

order directing Petitioner to file a formal application for a writ of habeas corpus and an in forma

pauperis application within thirty days. Petitioner partially complied with the Court's order by

filing an in forma pauperis application and sending a letter in response to the Court's order. 

However, Petitioner failed to file the Court's writ application form. Instead, she addressed a

Case 3:05-cv-02574-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 6
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

1Since this action was opened Petitioner has sent several letters to the Court in which she

states that she is confused as to whether her original writ is still pending. As discussed, the first

petition Petitioner filed was dismissed without prejudice. The present petition is a new and

separate action.

2

letter to the Deputy Court Clerk, in which she specified that she had a petition pending in the

California Supreme Court and, in effect, repeated her earlier request for an extension, asking the

Court Clerk to inform her how much time was remaining on the statute of limitations. Because

Petitioner did not file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court but instead sought an

extension of time to file such a petition in the future, on May 20, 2004, the Court dismissed the

petition without prejudice. Thereafter, Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability, which

this Court denied on August 4, 2005, and which the Ninth Circuit denied on September 14,

2005.

On June 23, 2005, the present action was opened when the Clerk of the Court received

from Petitioner a fully completed application for a writ of habeas corpus.1 In the petition

Petitioner raises eight claims, all of which she alleges she has exhausted in state court. The

Supreme Court of California denied Petitioner's final habeas petition on June 8, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

It 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." Id. § 2243. 

II. Legal Claims

The petition raises the following grounds for relief: (1) prosecutorial misconduct; 

(2) trial court error for failing to grant the defense motions for mistrial; (3) the wrongful

Case 3:05-cv-02574-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 6
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

admission of preliminary hearing testimony in violation of the right to confrontation; (4) the

wrongful admission of hearsay evidence and instructional error related thereto; (5) ineffective

assistance of trial counsel for failing to properly investigate and prepare an adequate defense;

(6) ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (7) trial court error for failing to respond to the

jury's question; and (8) the prosecution's knowing admission of the perjured testimony of a key

witness. As it does not appear from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to

relief, Respondent is ordered to respond to the petition as set forth below.

III. Pending Motions

A. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The trust account

certificate dated July 6, 2005, which Petitioner has submitted with her application, shows that

on that date the average deposits each month to Petitioner's account for the most recent sixmonth period were $59.73, and the average balance in Petitioner's account each month for the

most recent six-month period was $96.53. Based upon this information, the Court finds that

Petitioner has sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Petitioner shall pay the fee, as set forth below.

B. Motions for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing

Petitioner has filed motions for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary

hearing. The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). 

However, a district court is authorized 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. 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); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728;

Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). 

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that

Case 3:05-cv-02574-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 6
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

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations, see Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196;

Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996 (1966), and

whenever an evidentiary hearing is required, see Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases; United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); Bashor, 730 F.2d at

1234. At this stage of the proceedings the Court is unable to assess whether the appointment of

counsel is required. Once the Court has reviewed thoroughly the arguments and evidence

presented in support of and in opposition to the petition it will be in a better position to

determine whether counsel must be appointed. 

Similarly, it is premature for the Court to assess whether an evidentiary hearing is

required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). Petitioner argues that some of her claims rely on extrarecord evidence and no factual basis exists in the record to determine their merit. But this alone

is not enough to warrant an evidentiary hearing. The habeas statute provides that a district court

may not hold an evidentiary hearing on a claim for which the petitioner failed to develop a

factual basis in state court unless the petitioner shows that: (1) the claim relies either on (a) a

new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on

collateral review, or (b) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered

through the exercise of due diligence, and (2) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient

to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact

finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). 

Moreover, even if an evidentiary hearing is permitted because a prisoner was able to clear the

hurdle posed by § 2254(e)(2), one is not required. Downs v. Hoyt, 232 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th

Cir. 2000). Rather, the district court retains discretion whether to hold an evidentiary hearing or

to expand the record with discovery and documentary evidence instead. Williams v. Woodford,

384 F.3d 567, 590 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, Petitioner's motions for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary

hearing are DENIED without prejudice. If, in conjunction with its review of the merits of the

petition, the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing and/or the appointment of counsel is

Case 3:05-cv-02574-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 6
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 5

warranted, it will so order on its own initiative.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. (Docket no. 2.) Within thirty

(30) days from the date of this order Petitioner shall pay the $5.00 filing fee or shall inform the

Court that she is unable to do so and why. 

2. Petitioner's motions for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing are

DENIED without prejudice. (Docket nos. 3, 4, 7.)

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

attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

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

4. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 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, she shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within

thirty (30) days of her receipt of the answer.

5. 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. 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 receipt of

the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within

fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

6. It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned "Notice of

Case 3:05-cv-02574-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 5 of 6
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 6

Change of Address." She 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).

THIS ORDER TERMINATES DOCKET NUMBERS 2, 3, 4 AND 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2006 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02574-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/06/06 Page 6 of 6