Hawes v. Grounds

Filing 6

ORDER by Judge William Alsup denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

TERRY R. HAWES,
Petitioner,

8
9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
R. GROUNDS,
Respondent.

11

(Dkt. 2, 4, 5)
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-3189 WHA (PR)

/

12
13

INTRODUCTION
14
Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
15
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his conviction in state court. He is granted leave to
16
proceed in forma pauperis, and respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should not
17
be granted.
18
STATEMENT
19
Petitioner was convicted in Marin County Superior Court of attempted rape, terrorist
20
threats, threats to dissuade a witness, assault, and forcible penetration. He was sentenced to a
21
term of 27 years and eight months to life in state prison. In 2012, the California Supreme Court
22
ordered the sentence reduced.
23
ANALYSIS
24
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

25
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
26
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
27
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose
28
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

1

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

2

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

3

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

4

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

5

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

6

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

7

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

8

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

9

B.

Petitioner claims that he was denied his right to counsel at the preliminary hearing

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

LEGAL CLAIMS

because he was allowed to represent himself despite being mentally incompetent. When

12

liberally construed, this claim is sufficient to warrant an answer from respondent.

13

CONCLUSION

14

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

15

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

16

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.

17

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one days

18

of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

19

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

20

granted based on the claim found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and

21

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state prison disciplinary proceedings that are

22

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

23

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

24

court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.

25

3. Respondent may file, within ninety-one days, a motion to dismiss on procedural

26

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

27

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

28

with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within
2

1

twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and

2

serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

3

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

4

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must

5

keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

6

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

7

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772

8

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

9

5. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 2, 5) is GRANTED. The motion for
appointment of counsel (dkt. 4) is Denied without prejudice; counsel will be appointed sua

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

sponte at a later date if the circumstances of this case require, such as if an evidentiary hearing

12

becomes necessary.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: August

11

, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3