Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02981/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02981-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosanne Campbell
Respondent
Keith S. Hitchings
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH S. HITCHINGS,

Petitioner, No. C 05-2981 PJH

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Mule Creek State Prison, NUNC PRO TUNC

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Petitioner Keith S. Hitchings (“Hitchings”), a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

In 1983, Hitchings was convicted by a jury in the Humboldt County Superior Court of

first and second degree murder. The jury imposed the death penalty. Subsequently, in 1993,

the California Supreme Court granted Hitchings’ petition for writ of habeas corpus, vacated

the judgment of conviction, and remanded to the Humboldt County Superior Court for retrial. 

Following retrial, on May 3, 1996, Hitchings was convicted of two counts of second degree

murder. He was subsequently sentenced to two consecutive terms of fifteen years to life. 

Hitchings appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on December 2,

1997, and the California Supreme Court denied review on March 20, 1998.

On March 15, 1999, Hitchings filed a petition for habeas corpus relief with the

California Court of Appeal. On March 19, 1999, the appellate court denied the petition without

prejudice to Hitchings refiling the petition with the Humboldt County Superior Court. Hitchings

then refiled that petition with the Humboldt County Superior Court on March 22, 1999. The

superior court denied the petition on March 26, 2003. Hitchings again filed a petition for

Case 4:05-cv-02981-PJH Document 6 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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

habeas relief with the California Court of Appeal on May 30, 2003, which the court summarily

denied on April 16, 2004. Subsequently, on April 26, 2004, Hitchings again sought habeas

relief with the California Supreme Court. That court denied his petition on June 29, 2005. 

Hitchings filed the instant federal habeas petition on July 21, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It

shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ

should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief, raising one claim: that his Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when his state appellate counsel failed to raise an

issue regarding the trial court’s alleged failure to define the elements of involuntary

manslaughter, resulting in prejudice to Hitchings. Liberally construed, the claim appears

colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merits an answer from respondents.

C. Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel

The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner

whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” Generally, 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). The purpose of section 3006A is to provide for

appointed counsel whenever the failure to do so would amount to a denial of due process. Id.

Accordingly, in determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court should weigh the

Case 4:05-cv-02981-PJH Document 6 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

ability of a pro se petitioner to present forcefully and coherently his or her contentions based

on a good understanding of the issues. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.

1987). 

The court finds that the claim raised in the present petition is not complex. Additionally,

the court is unable to determine, at this time, whether petitioner can adequately represent

himself, as an attorney drafted his petition. Because of the foregoing and the fact that the

court finds the present petition to satisfactorily advance petitioner’s claim for relief, the court

DENIES the request for appointment of counsel nunc pro tunc.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on

petitioner.

2. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date 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 and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the

administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition.

3. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

 traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer.

Dated: August 15, 2005 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02981-PJH Document 6 Filed 08/15/05 Page 3 of 3