Carter v. Asuncion, 3:16-cv-07167

Harold Carter, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his 1st-degree murder conviction affirmed by the California Court of Appeal; the California Supreme Court denied review.
Carter asserts four grounds: (1) equitable tolling for a late federal filing, (2) a Brady violation, (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (4) trial-court error permitting cross-examination with a prejudicial photograph.
The district court reviewed pleading requirements for § 2254 petitions and noted that petitions must state facts showing a real possibility of constitutional error.
The court concluded the equitable-tolling claim is not properly presented as a standalone habeas claim and dismissed it without prejudice to raise tolling in response to any statute-of-limitations motion.
The court found the Brady, ineffective-assistance, and photograph-cross-examination claims, liberally construed, sufficient to require a response from respondent and ordered respondent to answer or file a procedural motion to dismiss.
Carter’s motion for appointed counsel was denied: the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas cases, and the court determined appointment was not warranted under the interests-of-justice standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Equitable tolling of filing deadline	Carter seeks equitable tolling to excuse late federal filing	Not a cognizable standalone habeas claim; timeliness is procedural and addressed if respondent moves to dismiss	Dismissed from petition; petitioner may raise tolling in opposition to any timeliness motion
Brady violation	Prosecutor withheld exculpatory/impeachment evidence in violation of Brady	Respondent to show cause or move to dismiss; merits to be addressed in the answer	Claim survived initial screening; respondent ordered to respond
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Counsel provided constitutionally deficient performance impacting verdict/sentencing	Respondent to contest on merits or procedural grounds in answer/motion	Claim survived initial screening; respondent ordered to respond
Use of prejudicial photograph in cross-examination	Trial court erred in permitting cross-examination using a prejudicial photograph	Respondent to justify admissibility or assert harmlessness	Claim survived initial screening; respondent ordered to respond
Appointment of counsel	Carter requested counsel for habeas proceedings	Sixth Amendment doesn’t apply; appointment under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A only if interests of justice require	Denied; court found claims adequately presented and not complex

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19 (petitions entertainable only for custody violations under federal law)
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (heightened pleading standards for habeas petitions)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722 (9th Cir.) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions)
Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769 (Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute can apply in habeas cases)