Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01154/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01154-1/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 Denying Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; Order Requesting

Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.08\Hernandez154ordmtdmisc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1154 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; DENYING MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING;

ORDER REQUESTING MOTION TO

DISMISS OR NOTICE THAT

MOTION IS UNWARRANTED

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. In a separate written order, the Court has denied Petitioner’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis and directed Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee within thirty days. Petitioner

has filed a request for appointment of counsel and a motion for an evidentiary hearing. The

Court will DENY Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel and motion for evidentiary

hearing (docket no. 3) without prejudice. The Court orders Respondent to address the

timeliness of the instant petition by filing a motion to dismiss or a notice that such motion is

unwarranted.

Case 5:08-cv-01154-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; Order Requesting

Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.08\Hernandez154ordmtdmisc 2

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, on May 14, 1996 Petitioner was sentenced to twenty-five yearsto-life in the Santa Clara Superior Court pursuant to California’s “Three Strikes” law. Petitioner

filed habeas petitions in the state superior court, state appellate court and state supreme court,

which were denied as of July 11, 2007. The instant petition was filed on February 27, 2008. 

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner requests appointment of counsel. Petitioner contends that appointment of

counsel is necessary because he cannot read or write at a level in which he can understand the

instant habeas proceedings. However, 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). 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. Petitioner has clearly articulated his claims so far. The Court will direct Respondent

to address the timeliness of the petition before addressing the merits of Petitioner’s claims, as set

forth below. Accordingly, the Court finds that no evidentiary hearing is necessary at this time. 

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

B. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing 

Petitioner moves the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing in the instant habeas action. 

However, an evidentiary hearing is held in federal habeas cases only under the most limited

circumstances. See Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1077-79 (9th Cir. 1999). An evidentiary

hearing on a claim for which the petitioner failed to develop a factual basis in state court can be

Case 5:08-cv-01154-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; Order Requesting

Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.08\Hernandez154ordmtdmisc 3

held only if 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). In short, if Petitioner did

not present in state court the facts he wishes to present now, for instance by developing them in

his state habeas proceedings, he cannot do so now unless he can bring himself within the

provisions of section 2254(e)(2) outlined above. 

The Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) apply in the instant case. The Court will order Respondent to address the

timeliness of the petition before addressing the merits of Petitioner’s claims, as set forth below. 

Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing on the merits is premature at this time. Petitioner’s motion

for an evidentiary hearing (docket no. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. 

C. The Merits

1. 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); 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. 

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) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

The Court may order the Respondent to file another pleading where neither service nor summary

dismissal is appropriate. 

Case 5:08-cv-01154-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; Order Requesting

Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.08\Hernandez154ordmtdmisc 4

See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254. 

2. Statute of Limitations

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) became law on

April 24, 1996, and imposed for the first time a statute of limitation on petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state

convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which: (1) the

judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct

review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was

removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted was

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have

been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Time during

which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending

is excluded from the one-year time limit. See id. § 2244(d)(2).

The one-year period generally will run from “the date on which the judgment became

final by conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The instant petition was filed on February 27, 2008, well after the

conclusion of Petitioner’s direct review. Accordingly, the instant petition appears to be untimely.

This apparent procedural problem should be addressed before the Court reaches the

merits of the claims raised in the petition. If the petition is time-barred, the litigants and Court

need not expend resources addressing the claims in the petition. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4

of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254, Respondent shall either (1)

move to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is untimely, or (2) inform the court that

Respondent is of the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted in this case.

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

///

Case 5:08-cv-01154-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; Order Requesting

Motion to Dismiss or Notice That Motion Is Unwarranted

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.08\Hernandez154ordmtdmisc 5

2. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (docket no. 3) is DENIED without 

prejudice.

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

all attachments (docket nos. 1, 2), upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney

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

4. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve upon Petitioner, within sixty days

of the date this order is filed, a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely, or a notice that

Respondent is of the opinion that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted. 

5. If Petitioner wishes to oppose the motion to dismiss, he shall do so by filing an

opposition with the Court and serving it upon Respondent within thirty days of his receipt of

the motion to dismiss.

6. Respondent shall file and serve a reply within fifteen days of receipt of

Petitioner’s opposition.

7. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No

hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. If Respondent

notifies the Court that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted or the motion is denied, the Court will

then determine whether to require an answer to the petition. 

8. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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. 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. 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

5/8/08

Case 5:08-cv-01154-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 Page 5 of 5