Burch v. Baker et al
ORDER The ECF No. 1 IFP application is granted. Clerk shall file the petition, and the motion for appointment of counsel. The motion for appointment of counsel is granted. FPD is provisionally appointed to represent petitioner. FPD shall undertake representation by 9/22/2017 or indicate his inability to represent petitioner in these proceedings. If representation accepted then amended petition due 10/22/2017. Clerk shall add AG as counsel for respondents. Clerk shall electronically serve both the AG and FPD a copy of the petition and a copy of this order. (E-service 8/23/2017) Respondents' counsel must enter a notice of appearance by 9/12/2017, but no further response shall be required at this time. Any state court exhi bits shall be filed with index as specified herein, and forwarded to staff attorneys in Las Vegas. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/22/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 8/23/2017 to reflect copy of order mailed to P at LCC (DRM).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MONTE LEE BURCH,
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00656-MMD-VCF
Petitioner has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4). The
court finds that petitioner is unable to pay the filing fee.
Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Petitioner is unable to
afford counsel, and the issues presented warrant the appointment of counsel. See 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
It is therefore ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
4) is granted. Petitioner need not pay the filing fee of five dollars ($5.00).
It is further ordered that the clerk of the court will file the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the motion for appointment of counsel.
It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel is granted. The
Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed to represent petitioner.
It is further ordered that the Federal Public Defender will have thirty (30) days from
the date that this order is entered to undertake direct representation of petitioner or to
indicate to the court his inability to represent petitioner in these proceedings. If the Federal
Public Defender does undertake representation of petitioner, he will then have sixty (60)
days to file an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If the Federal Public Defender
is unable to represent petitioner, then the court will appoint alternate counsel.
It is further ordered that neither the foregoing deadline nor any extension thereof
signifies or will signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period
established. Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the
federal limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and timely asserting claims.
It is further ordered that the clerk will add Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General for
the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents.
It is further ordered that the clerk will electronically serve both the Attorney General
of the State of Nevada and the Federal Public Defender a copy of the petition and a copy
of this order.
It is further ordered that respondents’ counsel must enter a notice of appearance
within twenty (20) days of entry of this order, but no further response shall be required
from respondents until further order of the court.
It is further ordered that any exhibits filed by the parties must be filed with a
separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The CM/ECF
attachments that are filed further must be identified by the number or numbers (or letter
or letters) of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court
record exhibits must be forwarded for this case to the staff attorneys in Las Vegas.
DATED THIS 22nd day of August 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?