Gipson v. Gastelo

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 11/20/2020. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 09/11/2020. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

GERALD A. GIPSON,

Case No. 20-cv-05861-LB

Petitioner,

12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

13

Re: ECF Nos. 3, 5

14

JOSEPHINE GASTELLO,

15

Respondent.

16
17
INTRODUCTION

18

Gerald A. Gipson, an inmate at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, filed this pro

19
20

se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He consented to proceed

21

before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 5.)1 His petition is now before the court for review pursuant

22

to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

23

District Courts. This order requires the respondent to respond to the petition and denies the request

24

for appointment of counsel.

25
26
27
1

28

Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECFgenerated page numbers at the top of documents.

ORDER – No. 20-cv-05861-LB 

STATEMENT

1
2

Mr. Gipson provides the following information in his habeas petition and attachments thereto.

3

Following a jury trial in Alameda County Superior Court, he was convicted of murder and first-

4

degree robbery. Sentence enhancement allegations that he had suffered prior felony convictions,

5

inflicted great bodily injury, and used a firearm were found true. On March 3, 2017, he was

6

sentenced to 108 years, four months to life in prison. He appealed. The California Court of Appeal

7

held that the great-bodily-injury enhancement was imposed erroneously but otherwise affirmed the

8

conviction and remanded for resentencing in light of new laws that gave the trial court the

9

discretion to strike certain enhancements. The California Supreme Court denied Mr. Gipson’s

10

petition for review. He then filed this action.
ANALYSIS

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody

13

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of

14

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A district court

15

considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order

16

directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from

17

the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

18

The federal petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges three claims. First, Mr. Gipson claims

19

that he was denied effective assistance of counsel as a result of the denial of a defense motion to

20

continue the trial. Second, he contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel

21

when the trial court denied his motion to substitute counsel to prepare a motion for new trial that

22

was based on trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. Third, he claims that the admission of improper

23

opinion testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and his Fourteenth

24

Amendment right to due process. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable in a federal

25

habeas action and warrant a response.

26

Mr. Gipson has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district

27

court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the

28

interests of justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. 18
ORDER – No. 20-cv-05861-LB

2 

1

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district

2

court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Appointment is mandatory only

3

when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent

4

due process violations. See id. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in

5

this action. Mr. Gipson has adequately pled his claims for relief and all of his claims previously

6

were presented by counsel in his direct appeal. Mr. Gipson’s request for appointment of counsel is

7

DENIED. (ECF No. 5 at 2.)
CONCLUSION

8
9

For the foregoing reasons,
1. The petition warrants a response.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

2. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition upon the respondent and

12

the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk shall also

13

serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.

14

3. The clerk shall electronically serve a copy of this order upon the respondent and the

15

respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email

16

address: [e-mail]. The petition and any exhibits thereto are available via the

17

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system for the Northern District of California. The clerk also shall

18

serve by mail a copy of this order on the petitioner.

19

4. The respondent must file and serve upon the petitioner, on or before November 20, 2020,

20

an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

21

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. The respondent must file with

22

the answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed

23

and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petitioner.

24
25
26
27

5. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the
court and serving it on the respondent on or before December 31, 2020.
6. The petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. The petitioner must promptly keep
the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

28
ORDER – No. 20-cv-05861-LB

3 

1

fashion. The petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

2

case on the first page of any document he submits to the court for consideration in this case.

3

7. The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (ECF No. 5 at 2.)

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: September 11, 2020
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – No. 20-cv-05861-LB

4