Mohammed v. People of the State of California, 5:12-cv-03308

Mohammed, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in the Northern District of California.
The court denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.
According to the petition, a Hayward County Superior Court jury convicted Mohammed of second-degree robbery and sentenced him to the upper term of five years on March 15, 2010.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in 2011, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
The federal petition was filed on June 27, 2012.
The issues identified include ineffective assistance of counsel regarding eyewitness identification and a Sixth Amendment challenge to the upper-term sentence; appointment of counsel was considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance claim merits review	Mohammed argues trial counsel failed to use an identification expert.	Respondent contends the claim should be evaluated in light of habeas standards and evidence.	Response required; no merits disposition yet.
Upper-term sentence violates Sixth Amendment	Mohammed contends the upper term was imposed in violation of Sixth Amendment rights.	Respondent maintains standard habeas review applies and justification is needed on the record.	Response required; no merits disposition yet.
Appointment of counsel	Mohammed seeks appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.	Court should determine if due process requires counsel; generally appointment is the exception.	Denied without prejudice.

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1975) (habeas jurisdiction and standard for federal review)
Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1986) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions)
Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir. 1986) (appointment of counsel is the exception, not the rule)