Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01053/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01053-0/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

ROMAINE L. NEVELS, G-16564,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOSIE GASTELO, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 16-1053 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(ECF No. 3 & 6)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony in

San Luis Obispo, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Contra Costa County Superior

Court. He also seeks appointment of counsel and leave to proceed in forma

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter

and other offenses related to an attack on his girlfriend. The trial court also found

true that petitioner had suffered one prior “strike” conviction and one prior

serious felony conviction and, on February 28, 2014, sentenced him to 23 years

in state prison. 

Case 3:16-cv-01053-CRB Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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 2

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court

of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which denied review on June 1,

2015. He also unsuccessfully sought collateral review of his conviction from the

state courts. On January 27, 2016, the Supreme Court of California denied his

final petition for state habeas relief and the instant petition for federal habeas

relief followed shortly thereafter.

DISCUSSION

A. 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. 

B. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief on grounds of ineffective

assistance of counsel, instructional error and prosecutorial misconduct. Liberally

construed, the claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from

respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal

courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED

without prejudice. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986)

(unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel in

habeas corpus proceedings is within the discretion of the district court). 

Case 3:16-cv-01053-CRB Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Petitioner adequately presented his claims for relief in the petition. Accord

Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (although petitioner had no

background in law, denial of appointment of counsel within discretion of district

court where petitioner clearly presented issues in petition and accompanying

memorandum). The court will appoint counsel on its own motion if an

evidentiary hearing is later required. See Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728

(appointment of counsel mandatory if evidentiary hearing is required). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is

GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve 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. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

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, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt

of the answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in

Case 3:16-cv-01053-CRB Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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

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 must serve and file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not

more than 28 days after the motion is served and filed, and respondent must serve

and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 days after the opposition is

served and 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. Petitioner must also keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2016 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.16\Nevels, R.16-1053.osc.wpd

Case 3:16-cv-01053-CRB Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 4