(HC) James v. People of the State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, Case No. 2:21-cv-00987-JAM-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ECF No. 2 CALIFORNIA, 15 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION Respondent. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 16 ECF No. 6 17 ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION 18 DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND GIVING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN 19 SIXTY DAYS 20 ECF No. 1 21 22 Petitioner is a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF 23 No. 1. The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 24 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 25 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 26 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 27 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 28 1 I have read the petition and, despite my best efforts, cannot understand the scope of the 2 claims. Petitioner did not use the court’s habeas form, and the petition is not subdivided by 3 claim. Petitioner mentions the possibility that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, 4 ECF No. 1 at 3, contends that the prosecution’s witnesses lied under oath, id. at 2-3, argues that 5 DNA evidence will exonerate him, id. at 4, and alleges that the photo line-up in which the victim 6 identified him was unconstitutional, id. at 5-6. None of these is sufficiently contextualized, 7 however. The petition’s remaining pages are devoted to raising other arguments and potential 8 claims. Id. at 6-12. Whether petitioner has exhausted any of these potential claims by presenting 9 them to the California Supreme Court is not addressed. I will give petitioner leave to amend 10 before recommending that this action be dismissed. If he files an amended petition, it should be 11 submitted on the habeas form sent with this order. 12 I will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and deny his 13 motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 6. There is no right to counsel in habeas 14 proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). In determining 15 whether the interests of justice favor appointing counsel, I must weigh the petition’s likelihood of 16 success and petitioner’s ability to represent himself. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th 17 Cir. 1983). As explained above, the petition does a poor job of explaining the nature and number 18 of claims at issue. Therefore, I cannot evaluate the likelihood that the petition will succeed on the 19 merits. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. 20 It is ORDERED that: 21 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 22 2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 6, is denied without 23 prejudice. 24 3. Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty days of this order’s entry. If 25 he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this 26 order. 27 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form. 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ June 24, 2021 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28