Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01876/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01876-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Order Addressing Petitioner’s Requests; Further Order to Show Cause Regarding Second Amended Petition; Instructions to

Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\hudson876oscamend2 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS L. HUDSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-1876 JF (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING

PETITIONER’S REQUESTS;

FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE REGARDING

SECOND AMENDED

PETITION; INSTRUCTIONS

TO CLERK

(Docket Nos. 36, 37, 41, 45, 46)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 5, 2004, the Court ordered Respondent to show

cause why the petition should not be granted. On April 19, 2004, Respondent filed a

motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner filed a

traverse opposing the motion to dismiss and a motion to withdraw and stay his pending

habeas petition in order to exhaust his state court remedies. The Court granted

Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition with leave to amend. The

Court denied Petitioner’s motion to withdraw and stay the instant petition without

prejudice. The Court directed Petitioner to file an amended petition containing only

Case 5:03-cv-01876-JF Document 47 Filed 04/23/08 Page 1 of 6
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

People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). 1

Order Addressing Petitioner’s Requests; Further Order to Show Cause Regarding Second Amended Petition; Instructions to

Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\hudson876oscamend2 2

exhausted claims and renew his motion to stay the amended petition. Petitioner filed an

amended petition, which was mistakenly opened as a new habeas action in case no. C 05-

1486 JF (PR) on April 5, 2005. Thereafter, Petitioner notified the Court that his state

habeas petition was denied by the California Supreme Court. 

On May 7, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to expedite his case. On May 11, 2007,

the Court denied Petitioner’s motion without prejudice and directed Petitioner to file a

second amended petition containing all of his exhausted claims within thirty days. The

Court instructed Petitioner that he must include in his second amended petition all of the

exhausted claims he intends to raise in this federal habeas action, including the exhausted

claims in his amended petition and the additional newly exhausted claims. 

In its September 28, 2007 Order to Show Cause, the Court noted that 

Petitioner had not filed a second amended petition, nor communicated with the Court. 

Therefore, the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the amended petition should

not be granted addressing Petitioner’s two claims:: (1) denial of Petitioner’s Marsden1

motion for new counsel violated his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment; and (2)

the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to CAL JIC No. 17.41.1 in violation of

Petitioner’s constitutional rights. Respondent filed an answer and supporting

memorandum on November 15, 2007. Petitioner has filed a request for correction, a

request for appointment of counsel, and a request to file a second amended petition. 

Thereafter, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a traverse. 

Petitioner filed a traverse and a second amended petition on December 13, 2007. 

Petitioner has filed two requests for status. The Court will address Petitioner’s requests

as set forth below. The Court issues a further order to show cause to Respondent to file a

supplemental answer and show cause why the second amended petition should not be

granted.

Case 5:03-cv-01876-JF Document 47 Filed 04/23/08 Page 2 of 6
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

Order Addressing Petitioner’s Requests; Further Order to Show Cause Regarding Second Amended Petition; Instructions to

Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\hudson876oscamend2 3

DISCUSSION

A. Petitioner’s Request for Correction

On October 11, 2007, Petitioner filed a request to correct the erroneous filing.

Petitioner alleges that the Court’s September 28, 2007 order, stating that Petitioner did

not file a second amended petition, is incorrect. Petitioner states that he did file a second

amended petition which was mistakenly opened as a new action in case no. C 05-1486 JF

(PR). He requests that the Court correct this error. However, Petitioner did not file a

second amended petition, rather he filed an amended petition containing his two

exhausted claims, which was filed in case no. C 05-1486 JF (PR). In the Court’s order

closing the 2005 case, the Clerk was instructed to transfer all documents from the C 05-

1486 JF (PR) case to the instant case. Thereafter, the Court proceeded with the amended

petition because Petitioner had not filed a second amended petition. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s request for correction (docket no. 36) is DENIED. 

B. Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner moves the Court for appointment of counsel in this habeas action. As

stated in the Court’s previous order denying counsel, the Sixth Amendment’s right to

counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,

728 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes appointment of counsel to

represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice

so require and such person is financially unable to obtain representation.” The decision to

appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801

F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Knaubert, 791 F.2d

at 728; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838

(1984). 

 The Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. As

discussed below, the Court will allow Petitioner to proceed with the additional claims set

forth in his second amended petition. Petitioner has aptly presented his claims so far and

Case 5:03-cv-01876-JF Document 47 Filed 04/23/08 Page 3 of 6
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

Order Addressing Petitioner’s Requests; Further Order to Show Cause Regarding Second Amended Petition; Instructions to

Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\hudson876oscamend2 4

no evidentiary hearing is necessary at this time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel (docket no. 37) is DENIED without prejudice. 

C. Petitioner’s Request to File Second Amended Petition 

Petitioner has filed a request to file a second amended petition. Petitioner states

that he was unable to comply with the Court’s order directing him to file a second

amended petition containing all of his exhausted claims because the prison has been on

lockdown due to a race riot. Petitioner was unable to use the law library during the

lockdown time period. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second amended petition with his

traverse on December 13, 2007. See Pet.’s Traverse, Exhibit D. The Court concludes

that Petitioner has shown good cause for an extension of time and grants Petitioner leave

to file the second amended petition. Petitioner’s request to file a second amended petition

(docket no. 41) is GRANTED. The second amended petition, filed on December 13,

2007, is deemed timely. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the second

amended petition should not be granted. Respondent shall file a supplemental answer,

addressing the remaining claims in the second amended petition pursuant to the Court’s

further scheduling order as set forth below. 

D. Petitioner’s Requests for Status

Petitioner has filed two requests for a status report. Petitioner’s requests (docket

nos. 45, 46) are GRANTED. The Clerk shall send a copy of the docket sheet to

Petitioner. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s request for correction (docket no. 36) is DENIED. 

2. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (docket no. 37) is DENIED 

without prejudice. 

3. Petitioner’s request to file a second amended petition (docket no. 41) is 

GRANTED. 

4. Petitioner’s requests for status (docket nos. 45, 46) are GRANTED. 

Case 5:03-cv-01876-JF Document 47 Filed 04/23/08 Page 4 of 6
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

Order Addressing Petitioner’s Requests; Further Order to Show Cause Regarding Second Amended Petition; Instructions to

Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\hudson876oscamend2 5

The Clerk shall send a copy of the docket sheet to Petitioner. 

5. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the second amended 

petition and all attachments thereto (docket no. 43) upon Respondent and Respondent’s

attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a

copy of this order on the Petitioner. 

6. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty 

(60) days of the issuance of this order, a supplemental answer conforming in all respects

to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why the second

amended petition should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the supplemental

answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state criminal proceedings that

have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the second amended petition. 

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the supplemental answer, he shall do so by filing

a supplemental traverse with the Court and serving a copy on Respondent within thirty

(30) days of his receipt of the answer.

7. 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

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.

8. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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. Petitioner must keep the

Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper

captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” 

///

Case 5:03-cv-01876-JF Document 47 Filed 04/23/08 Page 5 of 6
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

Order Addressing Petitioner’s Requests; Further Order to Show Cause Regarding Second Amended Petition; Instructions to

Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\hudson876oscamend2 6

Petitioner 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

4/22/08

Case 5:03-cv-01876-JF Document 47 Filed 04/23/08 Page 6 of 6