Wirth v. LeGrand et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting Petitioner's 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner's 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied. Petitioner's 6 and 7 Motions for copies are denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General as counsel for respondents. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CVL)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 CHARLES WIRTH, 10 Case No. 2:17-cv-00027-RFB-VCF Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 12 13 ROBERT LEGRAND, et al., Respondents. 14 15 16 Petitioner Charles Wirth has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 18 shall be granted. The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and it 19 shall be docketed and served on respondents. 20 A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which 21 petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be 22 forever barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. 23 §2244(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his 24 petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a 25 motion to amend his petition to add the claim. See 28 U.S.C. 26 Wirth has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2). There is no 27 constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. 28 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 1 1 428(9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney 2 v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor 3 v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). 4 However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial 5 of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person 6 of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 7 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970). Here, the 8 legal issues that petitioner raises pursuant to his guilty plea do not appear to be 9 particularly complex, and he demonstrates in his petition the ability to fairly present his 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 claims. Therefore, the motion for counsel shall be denied at this time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) on the respondents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send to petitioner one copy of the petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, as counsel for respondents. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the petition, 20 including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the 21 petition, with any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the 22 normal briefing schedule under the local rules. Any response filed shall comply with the 23 remaining provisions below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 5. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents 25 in this case shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other 26 words, the court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either 27 in seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. 28 Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to potential 2 1 waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that consolidates their 2 procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents 4 do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall do so within 5 the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically direct their 6 argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 7 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). 8 exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an answer. All procedural defenses, 9 including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss. In short, no procedural defenses, including 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents 11 shall specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state 12 court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have sixty (60) days from service 14 of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition, with any 15 other requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal 16 briefing schedule under the local rules. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed 18 herein by either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits 19 identifying the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall 20 be identified by the number of the exhibit in the attachment. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties SHALL SEND courtesy copies of all 22 exhibits in this case to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, directed 23 to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the outside of the mailing address label. Additionally, 24 in the future, all parties shall provide courtesy copies of any additional exhibits submitted 25 to the court in this case, in the manner described above. 26 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. 28 3 1 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s two motions for copies of filings (ECF Nos. 6 and 7) are both DENIED as moot. 3 4 DATED: 29 September 2017. 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?