Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04543/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04543-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. S. Evans
Respondent
James E. Topper
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. TOPPER, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. S. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4543 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket Nos. 2, 3)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison in Soledad, California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. Petitioner has

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is now GRANTED (docket no. 2). 

This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was sentenced to 70 years-to life in state prison

after a trial in Alameda County Superior Court in which Petitioner was convicted of

multiple sex offenses. Petitioner appealed his conviction to California Court of Appeal. 

Petitioner also filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of California. According to

Case 3:07-cv-04543-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 5
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

the petition, both were denied in 2006. Petitioner also alleges that a state habeas petition

was denied in 2007. The instant federal habeas petition was filed on August 31, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

I Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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.” Id. § 2243. 

II Legal Claims

The petition raises the following ground for relief: 1) insufficient evidence to

support the conviction in violation of due process. Accordingly, Respondent is ordered to

respond to the petition as set forth below.

III. Motion for Counsel

Petitioner also filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel (docket no. 3). 

Petitioner requests that counsel be appointed “so that my interest may be protected by the

professional assistance required.” However, 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.

 Here, no evidentiary hearing appears necessary at this time. The Court concludes

that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time, as

Case 3:07-cv-04543-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 5
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

Petitioner has adequately presented the issues in the petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 3) is DENIED without prejudice to the

Court’s sua sponte reconsideration. 

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, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of

the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60)

days of the issuance 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 granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all

portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant

to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond

to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on

Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the answer.

3. 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.

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

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice

of Change of Address.” He 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)

Case 3:07-cv-04543-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/08/08 Page 3 of 5
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:07-cv-04543-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/08/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

JAMES E TOPPER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M S EVANS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04543 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 8, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

James E. Topper

V79602

SVSP

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050

Dated: January 8, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-04543-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/08/08 Page 5 of 5