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)

Download PDF
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?