Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06374/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06374-1/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 to Show Cause; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Tran374oscatty 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHU TRAN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

MALFI, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6374 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(Docket No. 5)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court denied Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma

pauperis and ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee. Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee

on March 20, 2007. Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 

The Court will DENY Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 5)

without prejudice and order Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted.

\\\

\\\ 

*Original filed 4/2/07

Case 5:06-cv-06374-JF Document 7 Filed 04/02/07 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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Tran374oscatty 2

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty in Santa Clara Superior Court to possession of cocaine base 

(Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11350(a)) and misdemeanor driving on a suspended or

revoked license. (Cal. Veh. Code § 14601.2(a)). Petitioner also admitted that he had three

prior convictions that qualified as “strikes” under California’s “Three Strikes” law (Cal.

Pen Code § 1170.12) and had served three prior prison terms (Cal. Pen Code § 667.5(b)). 

On August 7, 2003, the trial court denied Petitioner’s motion to strike his prior

convictions, but the court struck the prison priors. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 

twenty-five years-to-life in state prison. 

Petitioner filed a direct appeal and the state appellate court reversed the judgment

and remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of reconsideration of the motion to

strike Petitioner’s prior convictions. On remand, the trial court denied Petitioner’s motion

to strike his prior convictions and re-sentenced Petitioner to twenty-five years-to-life,

applying the appropriate pre-sentence custody credits. Thereafter, Petitioner appealed

and the state appellate court affirmed the judgment. The state supreme court denied a

petition for review in 2005. Petitioner filed a habeas petition with the state supreme

court, which was denied on August 16, 2006. The instant petition was filed on October

11, 2006. 

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

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. 

Case 5:06-cv-06374-JF Document 7 Filed 04/02/07 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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Tran374oscatty 3

2. Petitioner’s Claims

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

imposed constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal

constitutions and is disproportionate in comparison to punishments for more serious

offenses; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to strike

the prior convictions in violation of due process; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims are sufficient to require a response. The Court

orders Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner moves the Court to appoint him counsel. Petitioner contends that

appointment of counsel is necessary because he is not trained in the law, has limited law

library access for purposes of researching and preparing pleadings, and his habeas

petition states a prima facie case for relief. Petitioner alleges that he has a mental

impairment which renders him incompetent to understand court rules and procedures,

which is an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control. See Pet’s Mot. at 1-2. 

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 and the issues presented

appear straightforward. Accordingly, no evidentiary hearing is necessary at this time. 

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 5) is DENIED without

prejudice. 

Case 5:06-cv-06374-JF Document 7 Filed 04/02/07 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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Tran374oscatty 4

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 5) is DENIED 

without prejudice. 

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

attachments thereto (docket no. 1) 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 criminal proceedings 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. 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.” 

\\\

\\\

Case 5:06-cv-06374-JF Document 7 Filed 04/02/07 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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Tran374oscatty 5

Petitioner 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: 3/29/07 JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06374-JF Document 7 Filed 04/02/07 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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Tran374oscatty 6

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Chu Tran

V-03081

CSP-Sacramento

P.O. Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671 

Case 5:06-cv-06374-JF Document 7 Filed 04/02/07 Page 6 of 6