Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02477/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02477-0/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 

TOYA DELYNN THAO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-2477 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, seeks appointment of counsel. 

Petitioner has not filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus or other pleading; nor has he paid the 

filing fee or sought in forma pauperis status. 

Petitioner states that he has been in prison since age 16, and requires the assistance of 

counsel to pursue a “new rule of substantive law” that impacts aider and abettor liability under the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine, the application of which would modify petitioner’s 

state conviction. Petitioner cites People v. Chiu, 59 Cal. 4th 155 (2014), a decision by the 

California Supreme Court. 

There exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in federal habeas proceedings. 

See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). Although 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 

authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of a federal habeas proceeding “if the interests 

of justice so require,” see Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases, the undersigned finds, due 

Case 2:16-cv-02477-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 10/24/16 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

to the prematurity of the instant request and for the reasons set forth below, that the interests of 

justice would not be served by appointment of counsel to petitioner at this time. 

 The undersigned is compelled to inform petitioner that it appears he is unable to state a 

cognizable claim under Section 2254 based on the circumstances he offers.1 A change in state 

law that impacts a prisoner’s state conviction or sentence does not in itself state a cognizable 

claim under Section 2254. Federal courts may grant a habeas petition challenging a state 

conviction or sentence only if the challenged state decision “was contrary to, or involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 

Court of the United States,” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” See 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (federal courts may 

consider petitions for writ of habeas corpus “only on the ground that [petitioner] is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States) (emphasis added). 

 Hence, a newly recognized constitutional right triggers commencement of a new one-year 

statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition only “if the right has been newly 

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral 

review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C) (emphasis added) (referring to the United States Supreme 

Court). Similarly, a change in state law by a state court in a proceeding in which petitioner was 

not a party does not qualify as a “factual predicate” triggering commencement of a new statute of 

limitations. See Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005) (construing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(d)(1)(D)). Nor does “a state’s determination of its own substantive law in a way that 

leaves a convict with no meritorious federal claim . . . constitute an ‘impediment’ under § 

2244(d)(1)(B)” that will trigger a new statute of limitations. Shannon, 410 F.3d at 1087. 

 For these reasons, it appears that petitioner may be unable to state a cognizable federal 

habeas claim on the basis he asserts. Nevertheless, if the court has misconstrued petitioner’s 

 

1

 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court is required to conduct a 

preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Pursuant to 

Rule 4, this court must summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and 

any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 

Case 2:16-cv-02477-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 10/24/16 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

intent and/or if petitioner has other, viable, grounds for filing a federal petition, he will be 

permitted the opportunity to do present them for screening. However, petitioner’s request for 

appointment of counsel will be denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 1, is denied without 

prejudice. 

 2. Petitioner may, within thirty (30) days after the filing date of this order, file a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with the $5.00 filing fee OR a 

request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 3. Petitioner’s failure to timely file a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be construed 

as a request to close this case without prejudice. 

 4. The Clerk of Court is requested to send petitioner, together with a copy of this order, 

the court’s form petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and form request 

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DATED: October 23, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-02477-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 10/24/16 Page 3 of 3