Green v. LeGrand et al

Filing 35

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Green's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel 28 is DENIED, and Green's Motion to Stay Proceedings 29 is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Green's Motion for Ruling 33 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 3/29/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

DUSHON NICHOLAS GREEN,

5

Petitioner,

6
7

v.
ROBERT LEGRAND, et al.,

8

Case No. 2:14-cv-01388-APG-NJK
ORDER (1) DENYING RENEWED
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL, (2) DENYING MOTION
FOR STAY, AND (3) DENYING AS
MOOT MOTION FOR RULING

Respondents.
(Dkt. #28, #29, #33)

9
10
11

Nevada state prisoner Dushon Nicholas Green brings this § 2254 petition to challenge his

12

2007 Nevada state court conviction and sentence for sexual assault and related charges.1 Green

13

again moves for appointment of counsel,2 requests that this case be stayed until counsel is

14

appointed,3 and requests a ruling on these motions.4

15

There is no constitutional right to counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding.5 But

16

the district court has discretion to appoint counsel if the “interests of justice require

17

representation,” and the court must appoint counsel if the case is so complex that denial of

18

counsel would amount to a denial of due process or the petitioner has such limited education that

19

he is incapable of fairly presenting his claims.6 Green argues that respondents’ dismissal

20

arguments are “too extensive, complicated, and inaccurate” for him to respond without counsel

21

and that his education is “very limited.”7

22
1

(See Dkt. #8.)

2

(Dkt. #28.)

3

(Dkt. #29.)

25

4

(Dkt. #33.)

26

5

Penn. v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987).

27

6

See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987).

7

(Dkt. #29 at 1-2.)

23
24

28

1

I denied Green’s first two requests for counsel because I found that the issues in this case

2

are not so complex that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and because I

3

found that Green’s petition is well-written and sufficiently presents the issues that Green wishes

4

to bring.8 Green has given me no valid reason to depart from my previous findings, and I do not

5

find that the arguments raised in respondents’ 13-page motion to dismiss are so extensive or

6

complicated to justify appointment of counsel.9 I therefore deny Green’s third request for court-

7

appointed counsel and his motion for stay pending appointment of counsel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Green’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of

8
9
10

Counsel (Dkt. #28) is DENIED, and Green’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (Dkt. #29) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Green’s Motion for Ruling (Dkt. #33) is DENIED as

11
12
13

moot.
DATED this 29th day of March, 2016.

14
15

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8

(Dkt. #7 at 1 (denying Green’s first and second request for counsel, Dkt. #2, #4).)

9

For example, respondents argue that Green’s petition contains unexhausted claims. (Dkt. #14 at
6.) Exhaustion is raised in defense to many habeas petitions and does not require appointment of counsel.

Page 2 of 2