Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00504/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00504-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY WAYNE SHUE, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JOSEPH L. McGRATH, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-00504-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER VACATING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 8)

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE

AN AMENDED PETITION

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 12)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITION BLANK FORM PETITION

FOR STATE PRISONERS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 14, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1). In that petition, Petitioner

raises four grounds for relief: 1) Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections when

the prosecution withheld evidence; (2) Denial of Petitioner’s right to the effective assistance of

trial counsel; 3) Failure of the trial court to instruct the jury that in California self-defense is a

complete defense; and 4) Misinstruction of the jury by the judge regarding California law on the

“initial aggressor.” (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). 

Case 1:05-cv-00504-AWI-JMD Document 13 Filed 01/05/06 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

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which requires the Court

to conduct a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus and to dismiss a

petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled

to relief," Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490 (9th Cir. 1990), the Court conducted a preliminary review of the instant petition and issued a

Report and Recommendation on December 15, 2005, recommending that Grounds Three and

Four be dismissed for failure to state cognizable federal claims. (Doc. 8). Ground Three merely

characterized the state court’s failure to instruct that self-defense is complete defense as a

violation of due process. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Ground Four referred to the state court’s mis-instruction

on the “initial aggressor” doctrine. (Id.). However, it contained no reference at all to federal law. 

In the Court’s view, therefore, Grounds Three and Four did not sufficiently allege violations of

federal law to entitle Petitioner to habeas relief. 

On December 30, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 10). Petitioner appended to his objections excerpts from the Petition

for Review filed in the California Supreme Court on direct state review of his conviction and

sentence. Also on December 30, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 

(Doc. 12). 

DISCUSSION

A. Withdrawal of the Report and Recommendation of December 15, 2005 And Order To

 File an Amended Petition.

The Petition for Review attached to Petitioner’s objections to the Report and

Recommendation was not filed with the original Petition and thus was not available to the Court

at the time it initially screened the Petition and issued its Report and Recommendation to dismiss

Grounds Three and Four. The legal arguments contained in the Petition for Review and that

relate to Grounds Three and Four disclose sufficient discussion of applicable federal law and

citation to federal authority to have adequately raised and exhausted those grounds as federal

claims in state court. Nevertheless, in his Petition, Petitioner has, in the Court’s view, failed to

adequately articulate his federal bases for either of these two grounds, as indicated by the Report

Case 1:05-cv-00504-AWI-JMD Document 13 Filed 01/05/06 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

and Recommendation issued December 15, 2005. 

However, because it appears now to the Court that Petitioner may in fact be able to plead

a cognizable federal basis for both Grounds Three and Four, the Court will permit Petitioner to

file an amended petition alleging the federal bases for Grounds Three and Four. To facilitate this

procedure, the Court will vacate its Report and Recommendation of December 15, 2005 and

order Petitioner to file an amended petition. 

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

Petitioner filed a previous motion for appointment of counsel on April 15, 2005. (Doc.

2). The Court denied that motion on April 25, 2005. (Doc. 6). At that time, the Court, as it does

again today, advised Petitioner that there exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in

habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958), cert.

denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469

U.S. 823 (1984). Title 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), Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases. 

Here, however, Petitioner has provided no reason except indigence for requesting

appointment of counsel. As was the case with the previous motion, the Court does not find that

the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly,

the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion. 

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation issued December 15, 2005 (Doc. 8), is VACATED; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 12), is DENIED;

3. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended petition. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition should be clearly

entitled “Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Petitioner is advised that the

amended petition must set forth his claim(s), including all the facts and arguments in

support of said claim(s). With respect to any claims raised in an amended petition,

Case 1:05-cv-00504-AWI-JMD Document 13 Filed 01/05/06 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

Petitioner must have presented those claims, either in his original state court appeal or

through a subsequent state habeas corpus petition, to the California Supreme Court prior

to raising them in this Court. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to advise the Court in his

amended petition of the dates when the state courts ruled on the issues Petitioner raised. 

The Court will not consider the original petition; instead, the amended petition must

be sufficient by itself without reference to the original petition. Petitioner is

reminded that each claim in the amended petition must state a cognizable federal claim

and adequately allege the federal bases for such claims; and,

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for state

prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in a recommendation

for dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00504-AWI-JMD Document 13 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 4