1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDBERT JAMES III, 11 Case No. 19-cv-06641 BLF (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. REOPEN ACTION; LIFTING STAY; 13 TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 14 RALPH DIAZ, COUNSEL 15 Respondent. (Docket Nos. 9, 10) 16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under

, challenging his state conviction. Dkt. No. 1. On January 20 6, 2020, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for stay to exhaust additional claims. Dkt. 21 No. 5. Petitioner was directed to notify the Court within twenty-eight days of obtaining a 22 copy of the California Supreme Court’s decision denying him relief by filing a motion to 23 reopen this action.

. On July 31, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen this 24 action, Dkt. No. 9, along with the amended petition and a copy of the state high court 25 decision dated July 16, 2025. Dkt. No. 8 at 144. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. 26 The Court will lift the stay in this matter. 27 /// 1 BACKGROUND 2 In 2017, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury in Contra Costa County Superior 3 Court of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and child endangerment. Dkt. No. 8 at 23. 4 With the application of a second strike and firearm enhancements, Plaintiff was sentenced 5 to a total of 109 years to life in state prison.

His appeals to the state appellate and high 6 courts were denied.

Petitioner also pursued additional claims in state habeas petitions, 7 which were denied by the state high court.

. 8 Petitioner filed an amended petition, motion to reopen this action, and motion for 9 appointment of counsel. Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 10. 10 11 DISCUSSION 12 A. Standard of Review 13 This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 14 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2254(a). 16 It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause 17 why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 18 or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 19 B. Legal Claims 20 In the amended petition, Petitioner raises the following grounds for federal habeas 21 relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to consult with a mental health expert 22 regarding post-traumatic stress disorder, Dkt. No. 8 at 28; (2) ineffective assistance of 23 counsel for failure to call Petitioner’s wife as a witness, id. at 45; (3) ineffective assistance 24 of counsel for failure to call Petitioner’s sister as a witness and to explain her refusal to 25 testify to the jury, id. at 59; (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to subpoena a 26 1 with victim and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise this claim on 2 appeal, id. at 70-72; (6) cumulative effect of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, id. at 3 77; (7) trial court error in failing to instruct the jury regarding self-defense’s “objective 4 reasonableness” standard, id. at 79; and (8) portions of child endangerment statute, Penal 5 Code § 273a(a) should be void for vagueness and Petitioner’s conviction on that count 6 should therefore be set aside, id. at 89. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable 7 under § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent. 8 C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 9 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel due to mental health issues, lack of 10 assistance from other inmates, and indigency. Dkt. No. 10 at 2. 11 The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith,

(9th Cir.), cert. denied,

12 (1986). Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within 13 the discretion of the district court. Id.; Bashor v. Risley,

(9th Cir.), 14 cert. denied,

(1984). Here, an evidentiary hearing does not appear to be 15 necessary at this stage of the proceedings, and Petitioner’s circumstances are not so 16 exceptional to warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for 17 appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 18 reconsideration should an evidentiary hearing be necessary to review the merits of 19 Petitioner’s claims. 20 21 CONCLUSION 22 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 23 1. Petitioner’s motion to reopen the case is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 9. The stay 24 is hereby LIFTED. The Clerk shall reopen the file. 25 2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Dkt. No. 10. 26 3. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the Respondent 1 following email address: [email protected]. The amended petition and any 2 exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern 3 District of California. See Dkt. No. 8. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on 4 Petitioner. 5 4. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 6 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the 7 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should 8 not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all 9 portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant 10 to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 11 If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with 12 the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the 13 answer. 14 5. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 15 answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 16 Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court 17 and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty- 18 eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve 19 on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 20 6. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded 21 that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true 22 copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all 23 parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of 24 Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure 25 to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: August 29, 2025 A) fl dcenar 3 ETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

23

© 15 16 &

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Lifting Stay and Reopening; OSC PRO-SE\BLF\HC. 19\0664 1James_reopen&osc 26 27