Decarolis v. Williams, et al.,

Filing 10

ORDERED that Clerk shall file and electronically serve the petition [1-1] and [1-2] on the Respondents. It id Further Ordered that Responses are due within 120 days. It is further ordered that 2 motion for appointment of counsel is Denied. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/10/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10

PATRICK PHILIP DECAROLIS,
11
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01379-KJD-PAL

12
vs.

ORDER

13
B. WILLIAMS, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
Petitioner Patrick Philip Decarolis has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and has
17
now paid the filing fee. The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and the petition
18
shall be docketed and served upon the respondents.
19
A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which petitioner is
20
aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever barred from seeking
21
federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is
22
aware of any claim not included in his petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible,
23
perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the claim.
24
Also before the court is petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF #2). There is
25
no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v.
26
Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision
27
to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986),
28

1

cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469

2

U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that

3

denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person of such

4

limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see

5

also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970). The petition on file in this action appears

6

sufficiently clear in presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to raise, and the legal issues do not

7

appear to be particularly complex; therefore, counsel is not justified. Petitioner’s motion is denied.

8
9

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE
the petition (ECF #s 1-1, 1-2) on the respondents.

10

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the petition, including

11

potentially by motion to dismiss, within one hundred twenty (120) days of service of the petition, with

12

any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule

13

under the local rules. Any response filed shall comply with the remaining provisions below, which

14

are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 4.

15

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this case

16

shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, the court does not

17

wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in seriatum fashion in multiple successive

18

motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to

19

dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that

20

consolidates their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28

21

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents do seek

22

dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall do so within the single motion to

23

dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically direct their argument to the standard for

24

dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In

25

short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an answer. All

26

procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss.

27
28
-2-

1

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents shall

2

specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state court record

3

materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.

4

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of the

5

answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition, with any other requests for

6

relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local

7

rules.

8

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

9

either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits

10

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

11

numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits

12

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

13
14
15

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF #2)
is DENIED.
Dated March 10, 2015.

16
17

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-