Delapinia v. Williams Sr et al

Filing 8

ORDER that the Clerk directed to file the petition; petitioner's IFP ECF No. 7 is granted; petitioner's motion to file protective petition ECF No. 3 is denied as moot; petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel E CF No. 5 is granted; FPD appointed; FPD will be appointed counsel and will have (30) days to undertake direct representation or indicate to the Court the offices inability to represent petitioner; Clerk directed to add AG as counsel for resp ondents; respondents' counsel must enter a notice of appearance by 11/27/2017; no further response will be required from respondents until further order; Clerk directed to send a copy of this order and the petition to AG and FPD (e-service on 11/07/2017); hard copy of any electronically filed exhibits must be forwarded, for this case, to the staff attorneys in Las Vegas. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/07/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 RYAN L. DELAPINIA, 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 12 Case No. 2:17-cv-02376-MMD-CWH BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al., Respondents. 13 14 15 Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 5) and an 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7). Petitioner is unable to afford 17 counsel, and the issues presented warrant the appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. 18 § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 19 Petitioner also has filed a motion to file protective petition, holding proceedings in 20 abeyance, and administratively closing case (ECF No. 3). This motion is moot because 21 the Court is appointing counsel, who will make the decisions how to proceed with this 22 case. 23 It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of the Court file the petition. 24 It is further ordered that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 25 No. 7) is granted. 26 It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion to file protective petition, holding 27 proceedings in abeyance, and administratively closing case (ECF No. 3) is denied as 28 moot. 1 It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2 5) is granted. The Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed to represent 3 petitioner. 4 It is further ordered that the Federal Public Defender will have thirty (30) days from 5 the date that this order is entered to undertake direct representation of petitioner or to 6 indicate to the Court his inability to represent petitioner in these proceedings. If the 7 Federal Public Defender does undertake representation of petitioner, he will then have 8 sixty (60) days to file an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If the Federal Public 9 Defender is unable to represent petitioner, then the Court will appoint alternate counsel. 10 It is further ordered that neither the foregoing deadline nor any extension thereof 11 signifies or will signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period 12 established. Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the 13 federal limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and timely asserting claims. 14 15 It is further ordered that the Clerk add Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents. 16 It is further ordered that the Clerk electronically serve both the Attorney General of 17 the State of Nevada and the Federal Public Defender a copy of the petition and a copy of 18 this order. 19 It is further ordered that respondents’ counsel must enter a notice of appearance 20 within twenty (20) days of entry of this order, but no further response will be required from 21 respondents until further order of the Court. 22 23 24 It is further ordered that the hard copy of any electronically filed exhibits must be forwarded—for this case—to the staff attorneys in Las Vegas. DATED THIS 7th day of November 2017. 25 26 27 28 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?