Castro v. Neven et al

Filing 25

ORDER - Petitioner's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 23 ) is granted : Petitioner's response to ECF No. 22 Order is due by 10/6/2017. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 24 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/22/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

MARTIN SALAZAR CASTRO,

10

Case No. 2:16-cv-01237-MMD-GWF
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
DWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

On August 7, 2017, this court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss, concluding

15

that grounds 2(B) and 2(C) of petitioner Martin Salazar Castro’s pro se § 2254 habeas

16

corpus petition were unexhausted (ECF No. 22). The court directed Castro, within thirty

17

days, to either: (1) inform this court in a sworn declaration that he wishes to formally and

18

forever abandon the unexhausted grounds for relief in his federal habeas petition and

19

proceed on the exhausted grounds; OR (2) inform this court in a sworn declaration that

20

he wishes to dismiss this petition without prejudice in order to return to state court to

21

exhaust his unexhausted claims; OR (3) file a motion for a stay and abeyance, asking this

22

court to hold his exhausted claims in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust

23

his unexhausted claims. Id. Castro has filed a motion for extension of time to respond to

24

the court’s order (ECF No. 23). Good cause appearing, the motion will be granted.

25

Castro has also filed another motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 24). As

26

the court has previously stated, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a

27

federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987);

28

Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). Castro has not presented additional
1

1

arguments to persuade the court that counsel is justified in this case. Accordingly, the

2

motion for appointment of counsel shall be denied.

3

It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s motion for extension of time to respond to

4

this court’s order dated August 7, 2017 (ECF No. 23) is granted. Petitioner will have forty-

5

five (45) days from the date of this order to respond to the Court’s order.

6
7
8

It is further ordered petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 24) is
denied.
DATED this 22nd day of August 2017.

9
10

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2