Fairbanks v. Covello
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-05471
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Fairbanks v. Covello, Judge Davila ordered a response to the habeas petition, granted a fee waiver, and denied appointed counsel.
Byron McCord Fairbanks and the respondent, Covello; the order also directed the Attorney General of California to receive the case materials as the respondent’s attorney.
What happened
Byron McCord Fairbanks, a state prisoner representing himself, challenged his voluntary-manslaughter conviction and 25-years-to-life sentence in Fairbanks v. Covello. He raised claims involving a defense witness, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court found that the claims could proceed under the federal habeas statute and ordered Covello to respond within 60 days. It also allowed Fairbanks to proceed without paying filing fees, while the case remained at the initial response stage rather than being decided on the merits.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied Fairbanks’s request for appointed counsel and granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees. The court also required the respondent to file an answer or a procedural motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Fairbanks v. Covello · No. 5:19-cv-05471
- Edward Davila
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Byron McCord Fairbanks, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. A Contra Costa County Superior Court jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter, and he was sentenced to 25 years to life on August 25, 2017. The opinion states that he appealed unsuccessfully in the state appellate and highest courts and filed this federal case on August 30, 2019.
Fairbanks identified three grounds for federal relief: the trial court allegedly violated due process and his right to present a defense by refusing to allow a defense witness to testify; the jury instructions allegedly contained an error; and his trial lawyer allegedly provided ineffective assistance.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that, liberally read, these claims were legally permissible grounds for a federal habeas petition and required a response from the respondent. The court therefore issued an order to show cause, directing the respondent to explain why the requested writ should not be granted. The respondent was also ordered to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record.
Fairbanks moved for appointed counsel. The court explained that the constitutional right to counsel does not apply to habeas proceedings and that appointing counsel is generally discretionary unless an evidentiary hearing is required. Because the petition was well presented and clearly stated its claims, and because the court did not find circumstances warranting counsel at that time, it denied the motion. The discussion describes the denial as without prejudice to later reconsideration if an evidentiary hearing becomes necessary; the conclusion separately states that the motion was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances.
The court also granted Fairbanks’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees. It set deadlines for the respondent’s answer or procedural motion to dismiss and for Fairbanks’s response. The order reminded Fairbanks that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and that failure to comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Disposition
The court granted the motion for leave to proceed without paying filing fees and denied the motion for appointment of counsel. It ordered the respondent to file an answer within 60 days, while permitting a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead. The court did not decide whether Fairbanks was entitled to habeas relief on the merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.