Holden v. Nevins et al

Filing 57

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 51 petitioner's proper person motion for withdrawal of attorney is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 52 petitioner's proper-person motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 55 petitioner's proper-person motion to stay is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 JIM BASS HOLDEN, 10 Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 WARDEN NEVINS, et al., 13 Case No. 2:13-cv-00668-JCM-GWF Respondents. ORDER 14 15 Petitioner has filed a motion for withdrawal of attorney (ECF No. 51), a motion for 16 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 52), and a motion to stay (ECF No. 55). Counsel represents 17 petitioner, and petitioner cannot file proper-person motions. LR IA 11-6(a). That reason alone is 18 enough to deny these motions. 19 Additionally, respondents’ arguments are correct. Petitioner wants new counsel to present a 20 new Sixth Amendment claim. This claim is untimely on its own, and it also does not relate back to 21 the claim in the amended petition (ECF No. 39) or any of the claims in the initial petition (ECF No. 22 4). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005). The amended petition is fully 23 briefed and is ready for decision. Under these circumstances, further amendment would be futile. 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s proper person motion for withdrawal of attorney (ECF No. 51) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s proper-person motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 52) is DENIED. 1 2 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s proper-person motion to stay (ECF No. 55) is DENIED. DATED: November 14, 2017. 4 5 _________________________________ JAMES C. MAHAN United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?