Garner v. Cox et al

Filing 5

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 1 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall file the petition for writ of habeas corpus. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 2 Motion for Hearing is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel is GRANTED. The Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed to represent petitioner. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender shall have 30 d ays to undertake direct representation of petitioner or to indicate to the court his inability to represent petitioner in these proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall add Adam P. Laxalt, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, as c ounsel for respondents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of appearance due within 20 days. ; ( Amended Petition due by 6/25/2016., Status Report due by 5/16/2016.) Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/26/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 *** 11 EDWARD EUGENE GARNER, 12 13 14 Case No. 2:15-cv-02430-JCM-CWH Plaintiff, ORDER v. JAMES COX, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #1) and a 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court finds that petitioner 19 is unable to pay the filing fee. 20 Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. #3). Petitioner is unable to 21 afford counsel, and the issues presented warrant the appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. 22 § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner has filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. #2). This motion is moot because the court is appointing counsel, who will be filing an amended petition. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #1) is GRANTED. Petitioner need not pay the filing fee of five dollars ($5.00). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. #2) is DENIED as moot. 3 intment of counsel (Doc. 4 #3) is GRANTED. The Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed to represent petitioner. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender shall have thirty (30) days 6 from the date that this order is entered to undertake direct representation of petitioner or to indicate 7 to the court his inability to represent petitioner in these proceedings. If the Federal Public Defender 8 does undertake representation of petitioner, he shall then have sixty (60) days to file an amended 9 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If the Federal Public Defender is unable to represent petitioner, 10 then the court shall appoint alternate counsel. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither the foregoing deadline nor any extension thereof 12 signifies or will signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period established. 13 Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal limitation 14 period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and timely asserting claims. 15 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall electronically serve both the Attorney 18 General of the State of Nevada and the Federal Public Defender a copy of the petition and a copy 19 of this order. 20 21 within twenty (20) days of entry of this order, but no further response shall be required from 22 respondents until further order of the court. 23 DATED THIS 26th day of April 2016. 24 25 26 JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?