Moore v. Masto et al

Filing 6

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 3 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel is Granted. The Clerk of the court shall send a copy of this order to Michael Pescetta and serve the respo ndents by certified mail with a copy of this order and a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondents' counsel shall file a notice of appearance of counsel within 30 days from the date of entry of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Michael Pescetta; mailed copies via certified mail to respondents- SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 RANDOLPH L. MOORE, 9 Petitioner, 10 vs. 11 RENEE BAKER, et al., 12 13 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 2:13-cv-0655-JCM-CWH ORDER 14 15 This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by 16 Randolph L. Moore, a Nevada prisoner under sentence of death. Moore filed a pro se habeas corpus 17 petition (ECF No. 1) on April 18, 2013. He paid the $5 filing fee. 18 Despite the fact that he paid the $5 filing fee, Moore also filed an application for leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3). In view of the information provided in that application 20 regarding his financial status, the court will grant Moore’s motion in part and deny it in part. The 21 court will not waive payment of the $5 filing fee, but, based on the information in his application, 22 will grant Moore leave to proceed in forma pauperis with respect to subsequent fees and costs. 23 In addition, Moore filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4). The information 24 provided in Moore’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shows that he lacks the 25 resources necessary to employ counsel for this capital habeas corpus action. Therefore, pursuant to 26 18 U.S.C. § 3599, and in the interests of justice, the Federal Public Defender for the District of 1 Nevada (FPD) shall be appointed to represent Moore. If the FPD is unable to represent Moore, due 2 to a conflict of interest or other reason, then alternate counsel will be located and appointed by the 3 court. Moore’s appointed counsel will represent him in all subsequent proceedings, pursuant to 4 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e), unless and until allowed to withdraw. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 6 (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The application to proceed in 7 forma pauperis is DENIED with respect to waiver of payment of the filing fee, but GRANTED 8 with respect to subsequent fees and costs. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel 10 (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada is appointed to 11 represent petitioner. The federal public defender shall have 30 days from the date of entry of this 12 order to undertake representation of petitioner or to indicate to the court its inability to represent 13 petitioner in these proceedings. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall send a copy of this order to 15 Michael Pescetta, Capital Habeas Division, Office of the Federal Public Defender, 411 East 16 Bonneville Ave., Ste. 250, Las Vegas, NV 89101. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall SERVE the respondents, 18 by certified mail, with a copy of this order and a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 (ECF No. 1). 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ counsel shall file a notice of appearance of 21 counsel within 30 days from the date of entry of this order. Respondents need not respond to the 22 habeas corpus petition unless and until ordered by the court to do so. 23 24 April 25, day of Dated this _____2013. April 2013. 25 26 _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?