Duda v. Neven et al
Filing
3
ORDER that 1 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall FILE and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) upon the respondents. The clerk of court SHALL ADD attorney general Adam Paul Laxalt to the CM/ECF docket sheet as counsel for respondents. FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. FURTHER ORDERED that 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/23/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
CHESTER DUDA,
11
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01176-JCM-CWH
12
vs.
ORDER
13
D. NEVEN, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
17
18
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
by a Nevada state prisoner.
19
Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). Based on the
20
information regarding petitioner's financial status, the court finds that the motion to proceed in
21
forma pauperis should be granted. The petition shall now be filed and served on respondents.
22
Petitioner has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2). Pursuant to 18
23
U.S.C. § 3006A(2)(B), the district court has discretion to appoint counsel when it determines that
24
the “interests of justice” require representation in a habeas corpus case. Petitioner has no
25
constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v.
26
Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The
27
decision to appoint counsel is within the court’s discretion. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196
28
(9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th
1
Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). The petition on file in this action is sufficiently clear in
2
presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to bring. The issues in this case are not complex.
3
Counsel is not justified in this instance. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
4
denied.
5
6
7
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 1) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall FILE and ELECTRONICALLY
8
SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) upon the respondents. The clerk of court SHALL ADD
9
attorney general Adam Paul Laxalt to the CM/ECF docket sheet as counsel for respondents.
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the
11
entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. In their answer or
12
other response, respondents shall address all claims presented in the petition. Respondents shall
13
raise all potential affirmative defenses in the initial responsive pleading, including lack of
14
exhaustion and procedural default. Successive motions to dismiss will not be entertained. If an
15
answer is filed, respondents shall comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing
16
Proceedings in the United States District Courts under 28 U.S.C. §2254. If an answer is filed,
17
petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of service of the answer to file a reply.
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any state court record exhibits filed by respondents shall
19
be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The hard copy
20
of all state court record exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to the staff attorneys in the Reno
21
division of the clerk of court.
22
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF
No. 2) is DENIED.
24
25
Dated this ______ day of August, 2016.
August 23, 2016.
26
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?