Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05760/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05760-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shemeeka C. Davis
Petitioner
Deborah K. Johnson
Respondent

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHEMEEKA C. DAVIS,

Petitioner,

v.

DEBORAH K. JOHNSON,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-05760-HSG 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AS MOOT; GRANTING

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL; 

REFERRING CASE TO FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE; 

STAYING CASE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 5

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California Women’s Facility has filed a pro se 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. Docket No. 5. The filing fee has been paid.

BACKGROUND

On June 16, 2011, Petitioner was convicted by a Contra Costa County jury of murder (Cal. 

Penal Code § 187), torture (Cal. Penal Code § 206), and felony child abuse (Cal. Penal Code § 

273a). Docket No. 1 (“Pet.”) at 1. On January 6, 2012, she was sentenced to thirty-two years to 

life in state prison. Id. Her conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on July 9, 

2014, and her petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court on October 1, 2014. 

Id. at 2. Petitioner reports that she did not file any state habeas petitions before filing this action. 

Id. at 3. The instant action was filed on December 16, 2015.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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 

Case 4:15-cv-05760-HSG Document 13 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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 Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims that: (1) there was insufficient 

evidence of the required mental state to support her conviction for torture; (2) there was 

insufficient evidence of the required mental state to support her conviction for first-degree murder; 

(3) the trial court’s refusal to instruct on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense 

violated her right to a jury trial and due process of law; (4) the prosecutor committed misconduct 

by misstating the law, in violation of due process; (5) the sanity finding violated due process

because no rational trier of fact could have rejected compelling evidence of insanity; and (6) 

Petitioner’s sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. Liberally construed, the claims appears 

cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 

1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas 

corpus liberally).

C. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Petitioner has filed a motion to appoint counsel. Docket No. 2. Accompanying the motion 

is a declaration from her court-appointed state appellate attorney, wherein the attorney states that 

Petitioner has borderline intellectual functioning with an IQ of 80, and that experts testified at 

Petitioner’s trial that she is “seriously mentally ill.” Docket No. 2 at 5. 

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” and such person is financially unable to obtain 

representation. The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. 

Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v. 

Case 4:15-cv-05760-HSG Document 13 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The courts have made appointment of counsel the 

exception rather than the rule by limiting it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial 

and complex procedural, legal, or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving 

petitioners that are uneducated or mentally or physically impaired; (4) cases likely to require the 

assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which petitioner is in no 

position to investigate crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman 

& R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383–86 (2d ed. 1994). 

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; 

Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965).

Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which in part requires that the court 

appoint a guardian ad litem or otherwise protect the interests of an incompetent litigant, applies to 

habeas cases. See Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, Petitioner has 

indicated that she is mentally impaired. Appointment of counsel is necessary in order to protect 

the interests of Petitioner. See id. at 1153-54 (allegations by a petitioner and another prisoner that 

the petitioner was mentally ill, supported by a psychiatrist’s letter stating that petitioner had 

schizophrenia and took psychotropic medications, were sufficient to trigger the obligation to 

appoint counsel and hold a hearing, or otherwise consider the claim); cf. Stokes v. Roe, 18 F. 

App’x 478, 479 (9th Cir. 2001) (vacating district court dismissal of habeas petition and remanding 

for appointment of counsel; finding that due process required appointment of counsel where the 

record “strongly suggest[ed]” that petitioner was suffering from schizophrenia or other psychosis 

and was unrepresented in earlier proceedings). 

Good cause appearing, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is GRANTED. 

Petitioner is referred to the Federal Public Defender’s Office in the manner set forth below so that 

an attorney may be located for her.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the 

Case 4:15-cv-05760-HSG Document 13 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The 

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

2. Petitioner is REFERRED to the Federal Public Defender’s Office for location of 

pro bono counsel. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to the Federal Public Defender’s 

Office in San Francisco. Upon being notified by the Federal Public Defender’s Office that an 

attorney has been located to represent Petitioner, the Court will: (1) appoint that attorney as 

counsel for Petitioner in this matter; and (2) direct the attorney to inform the Court whether she

will seek leave to file an amended petition; and (3) set a briefing schedule. 

3. All proceedings in this action are stayed until four weeks from the date an attorney 

is appointed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/29/2016

Case 4:15-cv-05760-HSG Document 13 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 4