Silva v. Adams

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, ORDER granting 2 MOTION/Application to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and denying without prejudice 5 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Arnold Anthony Silva. Habeas Answer due by 8/20/2012.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/18/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ARNOLD ANTHONY SILVA, F86336,
Petitioner,

9
10
11
12

vs.
CONNIE GIPSON, Acting Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 12-1495 CRB (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
(Docket # 2 & 5)

13
14

Petitioner, a state prisoner at California State Prison, Corcoran, has filed a

15

pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a

16

conviction from Sonoma County Superior Court. He also seeks appointment of

17

counsel and leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

18

BACKGROUND

19

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, gross

20

vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol

21

causing bodily injury and leaving the scene of an accident involving death. The

22

jury also found that petitioner had suffered several prior convictions. On August

23

23, 2007, the trial court sentenced him to 43 years to life in state prison.

24

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court

25

of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California. He also unsuccessfully sought

26

habeas relief from the state courts. On November 2, 2011, the Supreme Court of

27

California denied his final petition for state habeas relief. The instant federal

28

habeas petition followed.

1
2

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf

3
4

of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the

5

ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

6

the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

7

It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

8

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application

9

that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." Id. § 2243.

10

B.

Claims

11

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising several claims,

12

including ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, evidentiary and

13

instructional error, insufficiency of the evidence, and suppression of material

14

evidence. Liberally construed, the claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and

15

merit an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th

16

Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas

17

corpus liberally).

18

C.

19

Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (docket # 5) is DENIED

20

without prejudice. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986)

21

(unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel in

22

habeas corpus proceedings is within the discretion of the district court).

23

Petitioner adequately presented his claims for relief in the petition and an order to

24

show cause is issuing. Accord Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.

25

1984) (although petitioner had no background in law, denial of appointment of

26

counsel within discretion of district court where petitioner clearly presented

27
28

2

1

issues in petition and accompanying memorandum). The court will appoint

2

counsel on its own motion if an evidentiary hearing is later required. See

3

Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728 (appointment of counsel mandatory if evidentiary

4

hearing is required).
CONCLUSION

5
6

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

7

1.

8
9

Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (docket # 2) is

GRANTED.
2.

The clerk shall serve a copy of this order and the petition and all

10

attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney

11

General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order

12

on petitioner.

13

3.

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

14

60 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule

15

5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of

16

habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and

17

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been

18

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues

19

presented by the petition.

20

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

21

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt

22

of the answer.

23

4.

Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in

24

lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the

25

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion,

26

petitioner must serve and file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not

27
28

3

1

more than 28 days after the motion is served and filed, and respondent must serve

2

and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 days after the opposition is

3

served and filed.

4

5.

Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must

5

be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent's

6

counsel. Petitioner must also keep the court and all parties informed of any

7

change of address.

8

SO ORDERED.

9

DATED:

June 18, 2012
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.12\Silva, A.12-1495.osc.wpd

27
28

4