Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05767/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05767-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Adams
Respondent
Arturo Chairez
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTURO CHAIREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

M. ADAMS, Warden,

 Respondent.

______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5767 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2 & 3)

On November 14, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran

State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted, in the Superior Court of Monterey County, of four counts of

committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of fourteen. He was sentenced

to a term of twenty-five years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal

affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. 

DISCUSSION

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);

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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the

petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

Case 3:07-cv-05767-MMC Document 6 Filed 04/11/08 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

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

Petitioner claims that his conviction is invalid because the trial court erroneously

admitted inculpatory evidence in violation of petitioner’s rights to confrontation and due

process. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable.

With his petition, petitioner has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. The

Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert v.

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Pursuant to

statute, however, a district court is authorized 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.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 

Here, petitioner’s claims have been adequately presented in the petition; consequently, the

interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel and petitioner’s motion will be

denied. Should the circumstances change materially at a later stage of the litigation, the

Court will reconsider this decision sua sponte.

Petitioner also has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis; in light of

petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted..

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. (Docket

No. 3.)

2. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby GRANTED. 

(Docket No. 2.) 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent’s counsel, the

Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner.

 4. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

Case 3:07-cv-05767-MMC Document 6 Filed 04/11/08 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

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. 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’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed.

5. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

6. 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. 

7. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

8. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05767-MMC Document 6 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 3