Brown v. Williams et al

Filing 20

ORDER that Petitioner's 9 and 17 Motions relating to Appointment of Counsel are Denied. Respondents' 14 Motion for Clarification is Granted. The clerk shall electronically file, as a new and separate docket entry, the petition er's first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus currently located at ECF No. 9-1, p. 56-149. Respondents have 45 days from entry of this order to answer or respond to the amended petition. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded to the staff attorneys in Reno. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/18/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
ERICK MARQUIS BROWN,
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/

2:14-cv-00194-JCM-CWH
ORDER

15

On October 23, 2014, ths court entered an order granting petitioner leave to amend his

16

petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 8. On November 17, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for

17

reconsideration with respect this court’s prior order denying appointment of counsel. ECF No. 9.

18

With that motion, petitioner also submitted his first amended petition, which appears to have been

19

incorrectly docketed by the Clerk’s office. ECF No. 9-1, p. 56-149. As a result, respondents filed a

20

motion for clarification. ECF No. 14. On April, 24, petitioner filed another motion for appointment

21

of counsel, based on the mistaken belief that opposing counsel had not properly opposed his prior

22

motion.1 ECF No. 17.

23
24

The court’s reasons for denying counsel are spelled out in its prior order on the issue. ECF
No. 4. Petitioner has not put forth circumstances that would cause this court to deviate from its

25
26

1

Respondents’ opposition is filed under ECF No. 10.

1

decision to deny appointment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

2

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented

3

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

4

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”).

5

With respect to respondents’ motion for clarification, the clerk shall be directed to file

6

petitioner’s first amended petition under a separate docket entry. In addition, respondent shall be

7

directed to respond to the petition in the manner described below.

8
9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motions relating to appointment of
counsel (ECF Nos. 9 and 17) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for clarification (ECF No. 14) is

11

GRANTED. The clerk shall electronically file, as a new and separate docket entry, the

12

petitioner’s first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, currently located at ECF No. 9-1,

13

p. 56-149.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from entry

15

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

16

or other response, respondents shall address any claims presented by petitioner in his amended

17

petition. Respondents shall raise all potential affirmative defenses in the initial responsive pleading,

18

including lack of exhaustion and procedural default. Successive motions to dismiss will not be

19

entertained. If an answer is filed, respondents shall comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the

20

Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District Courts under 28 U.S.C. §2254. If an

21

answer is filed, petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of service of the answer to

22

file a reply.

23

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

24

herein shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter.

25

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

26

2

1

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

2

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

3

Dated this ______ day of May, 2015.
May 18, 2015.

4
5
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

3