Lara v. Williams et al

Filing 6

ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Clerk shallf ile and electronically serve the petition upon the respondents. Answer due 45 days from entry of this order. Replies due 45 days from the date of service of teh answer. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 4/19/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

JERRY LARA,

9

Petitioner,

10

vs.

11

BRIAN WILLIAMS,

12

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00505-KJD-PAL
ORDER

13

Petitioner Jerry Lara has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

14

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this action. (ECF No. 5). The petition shall

15

now be filed and served on respondents.

16

A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which

17

petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever

18

barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) (successive

19

petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his petition, he should notify the Court

20

of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the claim.

21

Petitioner also moves for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2). The Court has

22

considered the request and finds that appointment of counsel is unwarranted in this case. There is no

23

constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v.

24

Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The

25

decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th

26

Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.),

1

cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the

2

case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the

3

petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See

4

Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970). The claims in

5

this case are not especially complex. Also, the Court notes from the petition, and from the other

6

documents that petitioner has submitted to the Court, that petitioner is able to present matters to the

7

Court in an organized and understandable manner. Petitioner’s motion shall be denied.

8
9
10
11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall FILE and
ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) upon the respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from

13

entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. In their answer or

14

other response, respondents shall address any claims presented by petitioner in his petition as well as

15

any claims presented by petitioner in any Statement of Additional Claims. Respondents shall raise

16

all potential affirmative defenses in the initial responsive pleading, including lack of exhaustion and

17

procedural default. Successive motions to dismiss will not be entertained. If an answer is filed,

18

respondents shall comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the

19

United States District Courts under 28 U.S.C. §2254. If an answer is filed, petitioner shall have

20

forty-five (45) days from the date of service of the answer to file a reply.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon the

22

Attorney General of the State of Nevada a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document he

23

submits for consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original paper submitted for

24

filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to the

25

Attorney General. The Court may disregard any paper that does not include a certificate of service.

26
2

1

After respondents appear in this action, petitioner shall make such service upon the particular Deputy

2

Attorney General assigned to the case.

3

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any state court record exhibits filed by

4

respondents herein shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number

5

or letter. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed shall further be identified by the number or

6

numbers (or letter or letters) of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state

7

court record exhibits shall be forwarded – for this case – to the staff attorneys in Reno.

8

DATED: April 19, 2012

9
10

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3