Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02627/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02627-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HICKEY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-2627 KJN P

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. 

Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner was convicted on three counts of assault with a firearm upon peace officers with 

enhancements for personal discharge of a firearm, two counts of resisting a peace officer, 

exhibiting a firearm in the presence of a peace officer, and two counts of child endangerment. 

People v. Hickey, 2013 WL 3968350 (Cal. App. 3 Dist. 2013). Petitioner was sentenced to an 

aggregate term of 49 years and 4 months in state prison. Id. The instant petition was completed 

by an inmate who was assisting petitioner. (ECF No. 1.) The inmate claims that petitioner is 

unable to read and comprehend text on a sixth grade level, and is in the prison’s mental health 

program, Correctional Clinical Case Management System. (ECF No. 3 at 1.) The inmate 

Case 2:13-cv-02627-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 01/02/14 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

provided petitioner’s TAB reading test score, which reflects petitioner has a 5.9 reading level. 

(ECF No. 3 at 6.) 

However, the petition does not specify the grounds for relief. See Rule 2(c), Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases. Moreover, although the petition states that petitioner’s conviction was 

affirmed by the California Supreme Court, the petition also states that petitioner has a petition or 

appeal pending in a court, but does not identify that court. In addition, in the accompanying 

request for appointment of counsel, petitioner claims he wishes to pursue his “right to petition for 

cert[iorari] in the California Supreme Court, and does then need help on each judicial level, rather 

[sic] it’s the federal circuit or the lower court.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) The nature of the proceeding 

that is pending in state court, if any, is unclear from petitioner’s filings. 

Petitioner’s appeal was affirmed by the Court of Appeal for the Third District of 

California on July 31, 2013. People v. Hickey, 2013 WL 3968350 (Cal. App. 3 Dist. 2013). 

However, the website for the California Supreme Court does not reflect that petitioner has filed 

an appeal of his criminal conviction or a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California 

Supreme Court. 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived 

explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may 

not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the 

highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to 

the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 

1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

Petitioner is advised that he cannot pursue federal habeas relief until he has completed 

exhaustion of his state court remedies. Thus, if petitioner intends to pursue his criminal appeal by 

////

 

1 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(2).

Case 2:13-cv-02627-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 01/02/14 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

filing a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, or a petition for certiorari in the 

United States Supreme Court, petitioner’s filing in this court is premature. 

If petitioner intends to pursue habeas relief in the state courts, he should file his petition in 

the Butte County Superior Court as soon as possible. Petitioner may seek appointment of counsel 

in the Butte County Superior Court at that time. Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus 

statute imposes a one year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in 

federal court. In most cases, the one year period will start to run on the date on which the state 

court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for 

seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed 

application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

In light of the above, it appears that petitioner has not yet exhausted his state court 

remedies. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed based on his failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 

(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 

of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Because petitioner’s state proceedings are unclear, and petitioner did not identify the grounds 

upon which he seeks relief, the court is unable to determine whether appointment of counsel is 

appropriate at this time. Moreover, petitioner should seek appointment of counsel from the state 

court to complete exhaustion of his state court remedies. Therefore, the court does not find that 

the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2);

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied without 

prejudice; and

////

////

Case 2:13-cv-02627-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 01/02/14 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

3. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed, and petitioner is 

directed to show cause, within thirty days, why this action should not be dismissed based on 

petitioner’s failure to first exhaust his state court remedies. Failure to respond to this order will 

result in dismissal of this action.

Dated: January 2, 2014

/hick2627.114

Case 2:13-cv-02627-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 01/02/14 Page 4 of 4