Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05034/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Muniz
Respondent
Anthony W. Porter
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY W. PORTER,

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ, 

Respondent.

 /

No. C 14-5034 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, Anthony W. Porter, a California state

prisoner, has filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a judgment of conviction from the

Monterey County Superior Court. He has paid the filing fee.

I 

Petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial of

attempted murder and related counts following his participation in a

drive-by shooting. Petitioner was sentenced to 25 years but the

state court granted him a new trial regarding the allegations that

the crimes were committed for the benefit of a street gang and that

the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. 

Rather than face retrial on the two counts, petitioner agreed to a

settlement where he would serve a total of 34 years in prison. 

People v. Porter, No. H037619, 2013 WL 2284949 (Cal. Ct. App. May

22, 2013). The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction

Case 4:14-cv-05034-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/18/15 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

and settlement. Id.

II

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. 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief on the following

claims:

1. Trial counsel was ineffective for: 

i) failing to investigate gun shot residue; 

ii) failing to introduce exculpatory evidence of gun

shot residue on co-defendant Williams; 

iii) failing to properly interview a witness and then

not impeaching the witness; and 

iv) failing to present evidence of petitioner’s

physical weakness and his alcohol blackouts;

2. The prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.

83 (1963), with respect to gun shot residue evidence;

3. A violation of double jeopardy;

4. Trial counsel was ineffective at the plea stage when

petitioner agreed to the settlement; and 

5. Petitioner’s plea was not knowing and intelligent.

Case 4:14-cv-05034-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/18/15 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

Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims appear cognizable

under 28 U.S.C. § 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). 

III

Petitioner has also filed a motion for 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.

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, and the interests of justice

do not otherwise require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly,

Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Should

the circumstances of the case materially change, the Court may

reconsider Petitioner's request sua sponte.

IV

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 3

2. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this

Order and the Petition, and all attachments thereto (i.e., Docket

No. 1), on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney

General of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a

Case 4:14-cv-05034-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/18/15 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 4

copy of this Order on Petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner, within sixty-three (63) 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 twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the Answer.

4. In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file 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-five (35) days of receipt of the

motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a Reply within fourteen (14) 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 also must keep the

Case 4:14-cv-05034-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/18/15 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

Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing a

separate document entitled “Notice of Change of Address.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 02/17/2015 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.14\Porter5034.osc.wpd

Case 4:14-cv-05034-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/18/15 Page 5 of 5