Gonzales v. Gentry et al

Filing 19

ORDER Denying 17 Motion for Appointment of Counsel.FURTHER ORDERED that 18 "Motion in Limine" is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of the following documents to the Petitioner: ECF Nos. 1 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , and 16 . Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11

ALFRED CHRISTOPHER GONZALES,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00266-GMN-PAL

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

12
13
14

JO GENTRY, et al.,
Respondents.

15
16

This action is a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

17

initiated pro se by Alfred Christopher Gonzales, a Nevada prisoner, on February 13, 2018.

18

The Court has directed the parties to file briefing regarding the effect of an amended

19

judgment of conviction. See Order entered August 20, 2018 (ECF No. 16). The

20

Respondents’ brief regarding those issues is due on September 19, 2018; Gonzales’ brief

21

will be due 30 days later, and then Respondents will have 20 days to file a reply. See id.

22

On August 30, 2018, Gonzales filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No.

23

17). This is Gonzales’ second such motion; the Court denied his first in the order entered

24

on August 20, 2018 (ECF No. 16). “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus

25

relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case

26

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney

27

v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640

28

(9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam). The Court may, however, appoint counsel at any stage of
1

1

the proceedings “if the interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also

2

Rule 8(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. The Court

3

determines that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case, especially in light

4

of the possible basic procedural shortcomings of this action.

5

On August 30, 2018, Gonzales also filed a motion (ECF No. 18) in which he

6

requests that the Court provide him with copies of documents filed in this case. Gonzales

7

informs the Court that he had given his file to another prisoner, who was assisting him

8

with the case, and the documents have become unavailable to Gonzales because the

9

other prisoner has been transferred to another prison. Good cause appearing, the Court

10

will grant this motion, and will direct the Clerk of the Court to send certain documents from

11

the file to Gonzales.

12
13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
(ECF No. 17) is DENIED.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion in Limine” (ECF No. 18) is

15

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of the following documents

16

to the Petitioner:

17
18
19
20
21

-

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1);
Order filed February 14, 2018 (ECF No. 3);
Notice of Appearance (ECF No. 4);
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7);
Exhibits in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 9);
Order filed May 22, 2018 (ECF No. 12);
Response to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13);
Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14); and
Order entered August 20, 2018 (ECF No. 16).

22
23
24

11
DATED THIS ___ day of ______________________, 2018.
September

25
26
27

GLORIA M. NAVARRO,
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2