Pangilinan v. Lewis
Filing
7
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DENYING 2 Request for Appointment of Counsel, DENYING AS MOOT 6 Request to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
No. C-12-0194 TEH (PR)
ALFREDO G. PANGILINAN,
Petitioner,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DENYING
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND DENYING AS MOOT
REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
v.
GREG LEWIS, Warden,
15
Respondent.
16
/
Doc. ##2, 6
17
18
Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay
19
State Prison in Crescent City, California, has filed a pro se
20
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
21
challenging a judgment of conviction from Contra Costa County
22
Superior Court.
23
24
Doc. #1.
I
According to the Petition, in 2009, Petitioner was
25
convicted by jury of two counts of murder, assault with a deadly
26
weapon, and the jury’s finding true deadly weapon use, and multiple
27
murder special circumstance allegations.
28
sentenced to consecutive terms of life without possibility of parole
Doc. #1 at 32.
He was
1
for two homicides, a determinate term of 3 years for a conviction of
2
assault, and consecutive determinate terms of one year each of use
3
of a deadly weapon in each of the two homicides, as well as various
4
fines and court fees.
5
his conviction to the state appellate courts (id. at 32-40)and to
6
the California Supreme Court (id. at 3).
7
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus followed.
Id. at 7.
8
9
Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed
The instant federal
II
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of
11
a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation
12
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
13
U.S.C. § 2254(a).
14
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be
15
granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant
16
or person detained is not entitled thereto.”
17
28
It shall “award the writ or issue an order
Id. § 2243.
Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by alleging
18
that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
19
the murder of Virgina Farley.
20
Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claim appears cognizable
21
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merits an Answer from Respondent.
22
Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts
23
must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus
24
liberally).
25
26
27
28
See
III
Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc.
#6), which the Court DENIES AS MOOT.
2
The Court has already granted
1
Petitioner in forma pauperis status.
2
Doc. #5.
Petitioner also seeks appointment of counsel (Doc. #2),
3
which the Court DENIES without prejudice.
4
Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (unless an evidentiary
5
hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel in habeas
6
corpus proceedings is within the discretion of the district court).
7
Petitioner clearly presented his claim for relief in his petition
8
and an Order to Show Cause has issued.
9
complex.
See Knaubert v.
Nor is the issue presented
Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
appointment of counsel at this time.
11
F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (although petitioner had no
12
background in law, denial of appointment of counsel within
13
discretion of district court where petitioner clearly presented
14
issues in petition and accompanying memorandum).
15
Accord Bashor v. Risley, 730
IV
16
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
17
1.
The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of
18
this Order and the Petition, and all attachments thereto (i.e., Doc.
19
#1), on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General
20
of the State of California.
21
this Order on Petitioner.
22
2.
The Clerk also shall serve a copy of
Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on
23
Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order, an
24
Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing
25
Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should
26
not be granted.
27
Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that
28
have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a
Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on
3
1
determination of the issues presented by the Petition.
2
If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do
3
so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent
4
within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer.
5
3.
In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to
6
Dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory
7
Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
8
If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the
9
Court and serve on Respondent an Opposition or Statement of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Non-Opposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and
11
Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a Reply
12
within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any Opposition.
13
4.
Petitioner is reminded that all communications with
14
the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the
15
document to Respondent’s counsel.
16
Court and all parties informed of any change of address.
17
Petitioner also must keep the
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
DATED
04/25/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.12\Pangilinan-12-0194-osc.wpd
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?