Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01423/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01423-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin James Allen
Respondent
Charles Anthony Brooks
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ANTHONY BROOKS,

Petitioner,

v.

KEVIN JAMES ALLEN,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1423 CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the 

costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 

(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 

of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 

appointment of counsel at the present time. 

/////

Case 2:16-cv-01423-JAM-CKD Document 5 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review.

It appears petitioner challenges both a revocation of parole and his underlying convictions. 

Petitioner currently resides within this district, but petitioner was convicted in San Mateo County

which lies within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California. While both this court and the Northern District have jurisdiction to consider habeas 

claims regarding petitioner’s convictions and sentences, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court,

410 U.S. 484 (1973), any and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of such 

claims are more readily available in San Mateo County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

 Good cause appearing, petitioner’s habeas petition will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

In his amended petition, petitioner may challenge the fact that his parole was revoked, assuming 

petitioner has grounds to do so, and assuming such grounds have not already been adjudicated in 

federal court or are being adjudicated. Any claims regarding petitioner’s underlying convictions 

and sentences must be brought in a separate action in the Northern District.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied.

3. Petitioner is granted 30 days within which to file an amended petition for writ of 

habeas corpus that complies with the terms of this order. Failure to file an amended petition 

which complies with the terms of this order within 30 days will result in dismissal.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form-application for 

writ of habeas corpus by state prisoners.

Dated: June 28, 2016

1

broo1423.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01423-JAM-CKD Document 5 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2