Otero v. Reubart et al
Filing
4
ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Application to Proceed in Forma (ECF No. 1 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to separately file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 -1 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 2 ) is GRANTED. The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada (FPD) is appointed to represent the petitioner. If the FPD is unable to represent th e petitioner, because of a conflict of interest or for any other reason, alternate counsel will be appointed. In either case, counsel will represent the petitioner in all federal court proceedings relating to this matter, unless allowed to withdraw. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to electronically serve upon the FPD a copy of this order, together with a copy of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 -1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FPD will hav e 30 days from the date of this order to file a notice of appearance or to indicate to the Court its inability to represent the petitioner in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to add Aaron Ford, Attorney Gene ral of the State of Nevada, as counsel for Respondents and to provide Respondents an electronic copy of all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the office of the Attorney General only. IT IS FURTH ER ORDERED that the respondents will have 30 days from the date of this order to appear in this action. Respondents will not be required to respond to the habeas petition at this time. Clerk status check on 10/23/2024. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/24/2024. Attorney Law Library - Florence McClure WCC terminated. (For Distribution by law library.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TERESA SUE OTERO,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01725-RFB-EJY
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
WILLIAM REUBART, et al.,
Respondents.
10
11
This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by Teresa
12
Sue Otero, an individual incarcerated at Nevada’s Florence McClure Women’s Correctional
13
Center. On September 16, 2024, the Court received from Otero an Application to Proceed in Forma
14
Pauperis (ECF No. 1), a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1), and a Motion
15
for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 2).
16
The Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3) is incomplete in that it does
17
not include the required financial certificate signed by a prison officer. See Local Rule LSR 1-2.
18
Therefore, the application will be denied. The Court will, however, suspend the matter of payment
19
of the filing fee. The Court will set a deadline for Otero to pay the filing fee or file a new in forma
20
pauperis application after counsel appears on her behalf.
21
Prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the
22
circumstances indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.
23
Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640
24
(9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam)). The court may, however, appoint counsel at any stage of the
25
proceedings if the interests of justice so require. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also Rule 8(c), Rules
26
Governing § 2254 Cases; Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Otero’s filings indicate that this action may
27
be complex and that Otero will not be able to litigate this action pro se. The Court finds that
28
1
1
appointment of counsel is in the interests of justice. The Court will grant Otero’s Motion for
2
Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 2).
3
The Court has examined Otero’s habeas petition, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
4
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and determines that it merits service upon
5
the respondents. The Court will order the petition served upon the respondents, and will direct the
6
respondents to appear, but will not require any further action on their part at this time.
7
8
9
10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma (ECF
No. 1) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to separately file the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1).
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
12
No. 2) is GRANTED. The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada (FPD) is appointed
13
to represent the petitioner. If the FPD is unable to represent the petitioner, because of a conflict of
14
interest or for any other reason, alternate counsel will be appointed. In either case, counsel will
15
represent the petitioner in all federal court proceedings relating to this matter, unless allowed to
16
withdraw.
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to electronically
18
serve upon the FPD a copy of this order, together with a copy of the Petition for Writ of Habeas
19
Corpus (ECF No. 1-1).
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FPD will have 30 days from the date of this order
21
to file a notice of appearance or to indicate to the Court its inability to represent the petitioner in
22
this case.
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to add Aaron Ford,
24
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for Respondents and to provide Respondents
25
an electronic copy of all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic
26
Filing to the office of the Attorney General only.
27
28
2
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondents will have 30 days from the date of this
2
order to appear in this action. Respondents will not be required to respond to the habeas petition
3
at this time.
4
5
DATED: September 23, 2024.
6
7
8
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?