Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04229/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04229-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Harvey
Petitioner
D. K. Sisto
Respondent

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH HARVEY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-4229 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANT OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at California State PrisonSolano, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

 Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in Alameda County, which is

in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted petitioner of murder and being an ex-felon in possession of a

firearm. He was sentenced to prison for fifty-two years to life. Petitioner unsuccessfully

appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of

California denied review. He also has filed state habeas petitions, all of which were denied.

DISCUSSION

A. 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

Case 4:07-cv-04229-PJH Document 4 Filed 08/21/07 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

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. 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his due process

rights were violated when the prosecutor proceeded on a felony-murder theory which had

not been part of the case; (2) his due process rights were violated by the court’s instructing

the jury on robbery and aiding and abetting; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support

the conviction; (4) his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when the trial

court would not appoint substitute counsel to file a motion for new trial on ineffective

assistance grounds; (5) his counsel was ineffective at trial; and (6) the prosecutor

committed misconduct by falsely stating that one of the guns found at petitioner’s house

was the victim’s. These contentions are sufficient to require a response.

C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

 Petitioner moves for appointment of 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). However, 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." 

Petitioner has presented his claims adequately in the petition, and they are not

particularly complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. The

motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 2 on the docket is

GRANTED. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (document 3) is DENIED.

2. The clerk shall serve by regular 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. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

Case 4:07-cv-04229-PJH Document 4 Filed 08/21/07 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

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 days of his receipt of the answer.

4. 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 days of

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply

within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

5. 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 informed of any change of address and 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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\HARVEY229.OSC.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-04229-PJH Document 4 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 3