Scott v. Swarthout
Filing
6
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2012)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
MILTON B. SCOTT,
Petitioner,
8
vs.
9
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, DENYING
APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND FOR
RESPONDENT TO SHOW
CAUSE
GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden,
Respondent.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 12-4901 PJH (PR)
/
12
13
Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the California State Prison -
14
Solano has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
15
He also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
16
17
Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County, which is in this district, so venue is
proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
18
BACKGROUND
19
A jury convicted petitioner of murder. He was sentenced to fifty years to life in
20
prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and the California Supreme
21
Court denied review.
DISCUSSION
22
23
24
A.
Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
25
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody
26
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §
27
2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet
28
heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An
1
application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody
2
pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to
3
the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules
4
Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the
5
petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’”
6
Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.
7
1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject
8
to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102,
9
1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring).
B.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Legal Claims
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) His trial counsel was
12
ineffective for failing to object to the admission of certain recorded witness testimony; (2)
13
the trial court erred and violated due process in allowing into evidence certain graphic rap
14
lyrics; (3) the prosecution committed misconduct in closing arguments; and (4) the trial
15
court erred in allowing into evidence another witness’ statement, who refused to testify,
16
violating petitioner’s right to confrontation under the Constitution. These claims are
17
sufficient to require a response.
18
C.
Appointment of Counsel
19
Petitioner has also moved for appointment of counsel.
20
The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions.
21
Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C.
22
§ 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that in habeas cases, whenever “the court determines that the
23
interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible
24
person . . . .”
25
Petitioner has presented his claims adequately, and they are not particularly
26
complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel.
27
///
28
///
2
1
CONCLUSION
2
1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 5 on the docket) is
3
4
5
6
GRANTED.
2. The motion for appointment of counsel (document number 4 on the docket) is
DENIED.
3. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition and all
7
attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the
8
State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
9
4. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of
the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be
12
granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all
13
portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant
14
to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
15
16
17
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 thirty days of his receipt of the answer.
5. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an
18
answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
19
Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the
20
date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the court and serve
21
on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of
22
receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply
23
within fourteen days of receipt of any opposition.
24
6. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on
25
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner
26
must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's
27
orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for
28
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.
Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).
3
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 20, 2012.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
3
4
5
6
7
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.12\Scott4901.osc.wpd
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?