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)

Download PDF
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

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?