Depenbrock v. Neven et al
Filing
23
ORDER Granting 22 Motion to Extend Time. Upon Reconsideration 2 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel is Granted. The Federal Public Defender shall be provisionally appointed as counsel and shall have 30 days to undertake direct representation of petitioner or to indicate an inability to do so. Denying without prejudice 15 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/23/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
JEFFREY S. DEPENBROCK,
Case No. 2:12-cv-01327-RFB-CWH
Petitioner,
9
ORDER
10
vs.
11
12
13
D.W. NEVEN, et al.,
Respondents.
14
15
This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court on petitioner’s motion (#22)
16
for an extension of time, in which he additionally seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior denial of
17
his motion for appointment of counsel.
18
On reconsideration, the Court is persuaded that appointment of counsel is in the interests of
19
justice. Inter alia, subsequent to the prior denial of counsel, petitioner has been placed in disciplinary
20
segregation with only “paging system” access to the prison law library. The Court echoes the concerns
21
reflected previously in Koerschner v. Warden, 508 F.Supp.2d 849 (D. Nev. 2007), regarding the
22
difficulties faced by petitioners generally seeking to pursue a habeas matter with only paging system
23
access to prison legal resources. The Court further echoes Judge Reed’s statement therein that the Court
24
“will view the presence of similar limitations on access to legal resources as a strong factor weighing
25
in favor of appointment of counsel in other habeas cases before this Court that present nonfrivolous
26
claims and that potentially may proceed to service of the petition.” 508 F.Supp.2d at 861-62. The
27
Court additionally notes the substantial sentence of a minimum ten years to life and the complexity of
28
the potential procedural and substantive issues in the case.
1
2
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (#22) for an extension of time is
GRANTED as per the remaining provisions of this order.
3
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, on reconsideration, petitioner’s prior motion (#2) for
4
appointment of counsel is GRANTED. The counsel appointed will represent petitioner in all
5
proceedings related to this matter, including any appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to
6
withdraw.
7
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender shall be provisionally appointed
8
as counsel and shall have thirty (30) days to undertake direct representation of petitioner or to indicate
9
an inability to do so. If the Federal Public Defender is unable to represent petitioner, the Court then
10
shall appoint alternate counsel. A deadline for the filing of an amended petition and/or seeking other
11
relief will be set after counsel has entered an appearance. The Court anticipates setting the deadline for
12
one hundred twenty (120) days following the formal order of appointment.
13
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents’ motion (#15) to dismiss is DENIED without
14
prejudice to reassertion of all then applicable defenses following the filing of a counseled amended
15
petition. The denial of the motion to dismiss eliminates the need for a specific extension of petitioner’s
16
time to file a response to the motion.
17
18
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED, as previously directed herein, that counsel shall send a hard copy
of all exhibits filed, for this case, to the Reno Clerk’s Office.
19
The Clerk accordingly shall SEND a copy of this order to both the pro se petitioner and the
20
Federal Public Defender over in addition to the standard notice of electronic filing to respondents. The
21
Clerk further shall regenerate notices of electronic filing of all prior filings herein to the Federal Public
22
Defender.
23
DATED: September 23, 2014.
24
25
26
__________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?