Carmichael v. Williams Sr et al
Filing
19
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 14 the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, within ninety (90) days of entry of this order, petitioner shall file a counseled amended petition; that respondents shall file a response ther eto, including possibly by motion to dismiss, within forty-five (45) days of service; and that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days of service within which to file a reply to any answer filed. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/13/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
RICHARD LEE CARMICHAEL,
8
9
Case No. 2:16-cv-01142-RFB-GWF
ORDER
Petitioner,
vs.
10
11
12
JO GENTRY, et al.,
Respondents.
13
14
15
16
This represented habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court on petitioner’s
motion (ECF No. 14) for reconsideration as to the scheduling order (ECF No. 13) entered herein.
The scheduling order directed petitioner to file a counseled amended petition and respondents
17
to file a response thereto.
18
position as to whether the action may proceed forward as a habeas action rather than a civil rights
19
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20
hold that his claims sound in civil rights rather than habeas that the action be converted into and
21
recharacterized as a § 1983 action.
22
Petitioner requests that the Court instead direct respondents to state their
Petitioner additionally requests that if the Court ultimately were to
The Court finds it more appropriate to litigate such issues within the framework of the existing
23
scheduling order.
24
Court to an issue that counsel believes goes to the Court's jurisdiction and that further may affect the
25
ability of the Federal Public Defender to continue its representation under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a).
The Court understands and appreciates that counsel felt it necessary to alert the
26
27
28
−1−
1
However, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider this action through any dismissal or
2
recharacterization and beyond.
3
petitioner in this habeas action continues unless and until the Court were to recharacterize the habeas
4
action as a civil rights action, which has not occurred to date.
Moreover, the Federal Public Defender's ability to represent
5
If petitioner includes claims and/or seeks relief in an amended petition that can be pursued
6
only under § 1983, then respondents may litigate that issue in their response notwithstanding any
7
arguments on the current motion for reconsideration made while discussing issues only in the abstract
8
against the backdrop of the original pro se pleadings.
9
of a counseled amended pleading or subsequent submission.
The first step in joining such issue is the filing
10
While petitioner perhaps may present an amended pleading that in whole or in part presents
11
claims for relief arising instead under § 1983, the Court will not make a pre-filing commitment now
12
– in an advisory opinion – as to whether it will recharacterize the action as a § 1983 action.
13
types of actions are subject to markedly different procedures, including, inter alia, different filing fee
14
requirements and different exhaustion requirements. See generally Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d
15
922, 931-34 & nn. 8 & 11 (9th Cir. 2016)(en banc)(“independent and mutually exclusive” procedural
16
channels). Any such recharacterization, if otherwise available on the pleadings presented and if
17
sought by petitioner after assessing the relative pros and cons of such relief, would be subject to all
18
requirements and potential defenses applicable to a newly-commenced § 1983 action following upon
19
the recharacterization, subject perhaps only to possible relation back to the prior habeas pleadings for
20
limitations purposes.
The two
21
In this regard, the Court will follow a procedural track analogous to that often followed with
22
a motion to dismiss a petition for lack of complete exhaustion and a subsequent motion for a stay.
23
That is, if a motion to dismiss is granted on the basis that claims asserted in the counseled amended
24
petition arise instead under § 1983, the Court will withhold entry of judgment and allow petitioner an
25
opportunity to file a motion to recharacterize and/or for other appropriate relief in what then still
26
27
28
−2−
1
would remain a proceeding under § 2254.
The Federal Public Defender’s ability to litigate such
2
issues should continue for so long as an action under § 2254 remains pending that has not been fully
3
converted into a § 1983 action.
4
petitioner’s interests in seeking appropriate relief on the record presented on his petition “seeking
5
relief under section . . . 2254” under § 3006A(a)(2)(B) in lieu of an outright dismissal of the petition
6
qua habeas petition.
Up to that point, the Federal Public Defender is protecting
7
The Court is cognizant of petitioner’s position that multiple medical issues constrain his
8
ability to prepare pleadings in proper person, such as in a possible separate § 1983 action now and/or
9
following any conversion order. The Court would strongly consider making a referral to the Pro
10
Bono Program to determine whether an attorney will accept an appointment if the subsequent filing
11
presents cognizable claims under Section 1983 that may not proceed under Section 2254. Such an
12
acceptance of representation, however, is purely voluntary on the part of attorneys.
13
Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989)(district courts can only request that
14
attorneys accept representation of indigent litigants in civil cases).
15
matter, should proceed on an assumption that an attorney acceptance of a future referral may not be
16
forthcoming, or forthcoming timely in relation to the progress of the current habeas litigation.
See, e.g.,
Petitioner thus, as a practical
17
In all events, the Court’s preference is to decide the issue of whether the action arises in habeas
18
or instead under § 1983 based upon actual specific pleadings and motions filed by counsel rather than
19
anticipatorily in the abstract.
20
21
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the motion (ECF No. 14) for reconsideration is
DENIED.
22
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, within ninety (90) days of entry of this order, petitioner
23
shall file a counseled amended petition; that respondents shall file a response thereto, including
24
possibly by motion to dismiss, within forty-five (45) days of service; and that petitioner shall have
25
forty-five (45) days of service within which to file a reply to any answer filed.
26
27
28
−3−
The deadlines to file
1
a response or reply as to any motions filed, including a motion to dismiss, instead shall be governed
2
by Local Rule LR 7-2(b).
3
4
DATED:
March 13, 2018.
5
6
_________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
−4−
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?