Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04469/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04469-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 Petitioner named D. Sedley as the respondent in this action.

Acting Warden Nick Dawson has been substituted as Respondent pursuant

to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF J. HANCOCK,

Petitioner,

 v.

NICK DAWSON, Acting Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-04469 CW (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, AND

DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL AND FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid

the $5.00 filing fee. It does not appear from the face of the

petition that it is without merit. Good cause appearing, the Court

hereby issues the following orders:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order

and the petition and all attachments thereto upon Respondent and

Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

California.1 The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on

Petitioner at his current address. 

2. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon

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 issued. Respondent shall file with the Answer

a copy of all portions of the relevant state records that have been

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of

the issues presented by the petition. 

Case 4:07-cv-04469-CW Document 7 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3. 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 thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer. 

Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed

submitted and ready for decision thirty (30) days after the date

Petitioner is served with Respondent's 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 to the motion 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.

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. Petitioner must also serve on Respondent's counsel

all communications with the Court by mailing a true copy of the

document to Respondent's counsel. 

6. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time

must be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the deadline

sought to be extended.

7. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel and

an evidentiary hearing. The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does

not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791

Case 4:07-cv-04469-CW Document 7 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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). 

Petitioner clearly presented his claims for relief in the petition

and an order to show cause is issuing. 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). There also is no

indication that an evidentiary hearing is required under 28 U.S.C. §

2254(e). Petitioner's claims do not rely upon extra-record evidence

and a factual basis exists in the record to determine the claims. 

If during its review of the merits of the petition the Court

determines that further fact finding is required, the Court will

decide whether to hold an evidentiary hearing or whether the facts

can be gathered by way of mechanisms short of an evidentiary

hearing, such as supplementation of the record with sworn

declarations from the pertinent witnesses. See Downs v. Hoyt, 232

F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2000). 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). For these reasons, Petitioner's

requests for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing

are DENIED. 

8. Petitioner's request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is DENIED as moot. Petitioner recently paid the requisite

filing fee. 

Case 4:07-cv-04469-CW Document 7 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.07\Hancock4469.OSC-denyATTY&EVID.wpd4

9. The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Acting

Warden Nick Dawson as Respondent in this action. 

10. This Order terminates Docket nos. 2 and 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/26/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-04469-CW Document 7 Filed 10/26/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.07\Hancock4469.OSC-denyATTY&EVID.wpd5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF J HANCOCK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D SEDLEY et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04469 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on October 26, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Jeff Jay Hancock V-49474

Avenal State Prison

8 Kings Way

Avenal, CA 93204

Attorney General

State of California

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

Warden

Avenal State Prison

P. O. Box 8

Avenal, CA 93204

Dated: October 26, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-04469-CW Document 7 Filed 10/26/07 Page 5 of 5