Robinson v. Williams et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 1 first application to proceed in forma pauperis as incomplete. Petitioner's second, completed application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall file and electronically serve the petition 1 -1, 1-2 on the res pondents. Respondents shall file a response to the petition, including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the petition. Any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this case shall be raised together in a s ingle consolidated motion to dismiss. Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. Petitioners motion for appointment of counsel 2 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/2/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10

CHARLES ERNEST ROBINSON,
11
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:14-cv-02023-RFB-VCF

12
vs.

ORDER

13
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
17
18

Charles Ernest Robinson (“Petitioner”), a Nevada prisoner, has submitted both an incomplete

19

and a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 1, 5) and a petition for a writ of

20

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2). The Court has reviewed the petition

21

pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and the petition shall be docketed and served upon the respondents.

22

A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which Petitioner is

23

aware. If Petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever barred from seeking

24

federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) (successive petitions). If Petitioner is

25

aware of any claim not included in his petition, he should notify the Court of that as soon as possible,

26

perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the claim.

27

Also before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2). There

28

is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

is denied. However, Petitioner may reassert this motion at a later stage in the case as it evolves and its

11

potential complexity evolves.

12
13
14
15
16
17

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s first application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as incomplete.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s second, completed application to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE
the petition (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2) on the respondents.

18

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

19

potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the petition, with any requests

20

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

21

rules. Any response filed shall comply with the remaining provisions below, which are entered

22

pursuant to Habeas Rule 4.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

consolidates their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28
-2-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

rules.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19
20
21

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No.
2) is DENIED.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2015.

22
23
24

___________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
-3-