Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03260-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIEKO LEGETT,

Petitioner,

v.

GLORIA HENRY,

 Respondent.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3260 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Docket No. 4)

 On May 17, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. She has paid the

filing fee. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances (i.e. murder

committed while engaged in a robbery) in Santa Clara County Superior Court and sentenced

to a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal

affirmed and the Supreme Court of California denied the petition for review as well as a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed thereafter. 

DISCUSSION

A. Initial 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

Case 3:06-cv-03260-MMC Document 10 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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)).

In the instant petition, petitioner claims: (1) the admission of expert testimony violated

her right to due process; (2) the admission of “profiling” evidence violated her right to due

process; (3) the admission of “modus operandi” evidence violated her right to due process;

and (4) she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney (a) failed to

conduct a proper investigation and prepare an adequate defense, (b) failed to properly object

to the admission of expert testimony, (c) failed to object to her sentence as disproportionate

to the crime, and (d) failed to present exculpatory evidence at trial, specifically handwritten

letters by petitioner’s co-defendant admitting guilt. 

Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable.

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which is contained in her

initial filing. Petitioner has adequately presented her claims in the petition. Consequently,

the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in the instant case at this time. 

See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding Sixth Amendment’s

right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions). Should the circumstances change

materially at a later stage of the litigation, the Court will reconsider this decision sua sponte.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

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

amended petition and the petition, along with all attachments thereto, 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.

Case 3:06-cv-03260-MMC Document 10 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 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 the claim in the petition. 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 amended

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 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 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 30 days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent

shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of the date any

opposition is filed.

4. 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. 

5. 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).

6. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 12, 2007

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-03260-MMC Document 10 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 3