Adkisson v. Neven et al

Filing 7

ORDER that the Clerk shall detach and file Petitioner's 1 -1, 1 -2 Federal Habeas Petition. Petitioner's 2 Motion for Issuance of Stay and Abeyance of the Federal Habeas Corpus proceeding is Granted. Petitioner's 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel is Denied without prejudice. This action is Stayed pending final resolution of petitioner's postconviction habeas petition. The grant of a stay is conditioned upon petitioner returning to federal court with a motion to reopen the case within 45 days of the issuance of the remittitur by the Supreme Court of Nevada. The Clerk shall administratively close this action until such time as the court grants a motion to reopen the matter. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/13/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10

MICHAEL DEAN ADKISSON,
11
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01934-APG-CWH

12
vs.

ORDER

13
D.W. NEVEN, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
17
18

Pursuant to this court’s order, petitioner has now paid the filing fee for his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

19

habeas petition. Now before the court is petitioner’s motion for a stay of these federal proceedings until

20

his state habeas petition is resolved (Dkt. #2).

21

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court placed limitations upon the

22

discretion of the court to facilitate habeas petitioners’ return to state court to exhaust claims. The

23

Rhines Court stated:

24
25
26
27
28

[S]tay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances.
Because granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner’s failure to
present his claims first to the state courts, stay and abeyance is only
appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for
the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.
Moreover, even if a petitioner had good cause for that failure, the district
court would abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his
unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2)
(“An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the

1

merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the
remedies available in the courts of the State”).

2
3

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. The Court went on to state that, “[I]t likely would be an abuse of discretion

4

for a district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause for

5

his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that

6

the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. at 278. The Ninth Circuit has held

7

that the application of an “extraordinary circumstances” standard does not comport with the “good

8

cause” standard prescribed by Rhines. Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661-62 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court

9

may stay a petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims if: (1) the habeas petitioner has

10

good cause; (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and (3) petitioner has not engaged

11

in dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277; see also Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019,

12

1023-24 (9th Cir. 2008).

13

Petitioner states on the face of his current federal petition that he has a state postconviction

14

petition still pending before the Nevada Supreme Court (Dkt. #1-1, p. 2). Petitioner has also filed a

15

motion for appointment of counsel, in which he states that: “Due to (3) sets of habeas counsel’s

16

failures, [he] has no time left” under the AEDPA statute of limitations and thus has filed his federal

17

petition as a protective petition (Dkt. #3, p. 4).

18

In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 416, the United States Supreme Court indicated that a

19

petitioner facing the “predicament” that could occur if he is waiting for a final decision from the state

20

courts as to whether his petition was “properly filed” should file a “protective” federal petition and ask

21

the federal court for a stay and abeyance. See also, Rudin v. Myles, 766 F.3d 1161, 1174 (9th Cir. 2014).

22

In this regard, petitioner’s pro se federal petition was appropriately filed as a protective petition.

23

Petitioner has demonstrated good cause under Rhines for the failure to exhaust all grounds of the federal

24

petition prior to filing it. It is unclear whether petitioner’s state postconviction petition, which appears

25

to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims, will be deemed timely filed. Accordingly, a stay and

26

abeyance of this federal habeas corpus proceeding is appropriate. Further, the grounds of the federal

27

petition that petitioner seeks to exhaust in state court are not “plainly meritless” under the second prong

28

of the Rhines test. Currently, the court has no indication that petitioner engaged in dilatory litigation
-2-

1

tactics. This court thus concludes that petitioner has satisfied the criteria for a stay and abeyance under

2

Rhines. Petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance of this federal habeas corpus proceeding is granted.

3
4

Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #3).

There is no

5

constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v.

6

Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision

7

to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986),

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970).

13

Here, the court finds that the motion for appointment of counsel is premature. Petitioner will

14

need to file a motion to re-open the case after his state postconviction proceedings have concluded.

15

Further, petitioner shall file a motion to file an amended petition and attach a proposed amended

16

petition. Such amended petition shall clearly and concisely set forth the factual basis for his claims,

17

as well as demonstrate that the petition is timely and that his claims are exhausted.1 At that time,

18

petitioner may file a second motion for appointment of counsel if he is able to demonstrate that the

19

complexities of his case are such that a denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process.

20

Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.

21
22
23
24

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk SHALL DETACH AND FILE petitioner’s
federal habeas petition (Dkt. #s1-1, 1-2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for issuance of stay and abeyance (Dkt.
#2) of this federal habeas corpus proceeding is GRANTED.

25
26
27
28

1

The court notes that the petition before the court appears to be unnecessarily repetitive and
prolix and emphasizes that petitioner’s amended petition should clearly and concisely set forth the
factual basis for his claims.
-3-

1
2
3
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #3)
is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending final resolution of
petitioner’s postconviction habeas petition.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the grant of a stay is conditioned upon petitioner returning

6

to federal court with a motion to reopen the case within forty-five (45) days of the issuance of the

7

remittitur by the Supreme Court of Nevada, at the conclusion of the state court proceedings on the

8

postconviction habeas petition.

9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this
action, until such time as the court grants a motion to reopen the matter.
Dated: April 13, 2015.

12
13

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-