West v. Williams et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Extend Time ; ORDER granting 21 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; ORDER denying 22 Motion for Appointment of Counsel ; ORDER denying 23 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order; Petitioner shall have sixty days from the date this order is entered to file a reply. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 HYRUM JOSEPH WEST, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ____________________________________/ 2:15-cv-02462-GMN-NJK ORDER 13 14 This is a habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 brought by Hyrum Joseph West, a 15 Nevada prisoner. Pending before the court are West’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s 16 dismissal of Grounds 1 and 2 (ECF No. 23),1 his second motion for appointment of counsel (ECF 17 No. 22), his motion for leave to file excess pages (ECF No. 21), and his motion for extension of time 18 (ECF No. 28). For the reasons that follow, the first two motions shall be denied. The motions for 19 leave to file excess pages and for extension of time shall granted. Motion for reconsideration 20 21 West asks this court to reconsider its order of March 1, 2017 (ECF No. 20), which dismissed 22 Grounds 1 and 2 of West’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 9) except for claims 23 premised on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Those claims were dismissed by the Nevada 24 25 26 1 West cites Fed. R. App. Pro. P. 40 as authority for his motion. While the rule does not apply to proceedings in the United States district courts (see Fed. R. App. P. 1(a)), this court construes the motion as a motion for reconsideration. 1 Supreme Court as successive under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1)(a). This court concluded that the 2 claims are procedurally defaulted in this court. In addition, this court concluded that the claims were 3 barred by Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973), and/or not cognizable in a federal habeas 4 proceeding. 5 With his motion, West does not raise any arguments that he did not or could not have raised 6 in opposing respondents’ motion to dismiss. Thus, the motion is denied. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 7 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that reconsideration was properly denied where movant 8 presented no arguments that had not already been raised in opposition to summary judgment); Kona 9 Enters., Inc. v.. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that motion for 10 reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments that could reasonably have been raised earlier in 11 the litigation). 12 Motion for appointment of counsel 13 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3006A(a)(2)(B), the district court has discretion to appoint counsel 14 when it determines that the "interests of justice" require representation. There is no constitutional 15 right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 16 551, 555(1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint 17 counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Bashor v. 18 Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the 19 complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and 20 where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his 21 claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970). 22 The petition on file in this action is sufficiently clear in presenting West’s claims. Also, the 23 issues in this case are not particularly complex. It does not appear that counsel is justified in this 24 instance. Moreover, this court rejects West’s contention that it does not give due consideration to 25 documents filed by pro se litigants. West's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 26 2 1 2 3 IT THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s second motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22) and motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 23) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to file excess pages (ECF 4 No. 21) and motion for extension of time (ECF No. 28) are GRANTED. Petitioner shall have sixty 5 (60) days from the date this order is entered to file a reply. 6 9 Dated this ______ day of February, 2018. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?