Garcia v. Williams et al

Filing 19

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 15 petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 petitioner's motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. Petitioner's response to 11 respondents' motion to dismiss is due on or before 4/27/2018. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
DENNIS R. GARCIA,
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/

15

2:17-cv-00485-JCM-GWF
ORDER

On December 29, 1017, petitioner Garcia filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF

16

No. 15. This court denied Garcia' prior motion for appointment of counsel in its initial screening

17

order. ECF No. 8.

18

Having considered Garcia’s points and authorities and reviewed his filings in this case, the

19

court stands by its decision to deny appointment counsel. As noted in the court's prior order, there is

20

no constitutional right to counsel in a habeas proceeding. Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th

21

Cir. 1993). "Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed

22

counsel unless the circumstances indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process

23

violations." Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023

24

(1987).

25
26

Garcia has failed to show that the complexities of the case are such that denial of appointed
counsel would amount to a denial of due process. In addition, his filings with the court indicate that

1

he understands the issues and is capable of presenting his arguments to the court. See LaMere v.

2

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming the denial of the appointment of counsel where a

3

petitioner's pleadings demonstrated a good understanding of the issues and an ability to present

4

contentions "forcefully and coherently").

5
6
7

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF
No. 15) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No.

8

18) is GRANTED. Petitioner’s response to respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is due on

9

or before April 27, 2018.

10

March 8, 2018.
Dated this ______ day of March, 2018.

11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2