Guardado v. Nevada Attorney General, et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying 39 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order; denying 40 Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel; granting nunc pro tunc 42 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 41 Motion for Order to Show Cause; granting nunc pro tunc 46 Motion for Extension of Time; and denying 45 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/10/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

MANUEL STEVEN GUARDADO,

10
11
12
13
14
15

Petitioner,

Case No. 3:10-cv-00103-MMD-WGC
ORDER

v.
NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,
Respondents.
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner.

16

This action was previously closed following the Court’s granting of a stay and

17

abeyance while petitioner returned to state court to exhaust his state-court remedies

18

with respect to certain of his grounds for relief. (Dkt. no. 35.) On November 21, 2013,

19

the Court granted petitioner’s motion to reopen the case, as petitioner’s further state-

20

court proceedings concluded. (Dkt. no. 38.) In the order reopening the case, the Court

21

also denied petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (Id.)

22

Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his

23

motion for the appointment of counsel and a renewed motion for the appointment of

24

counsel. (Dkt. nos. 39 & 40.) There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a

25

federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987);

26

Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is

27

generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert.

28

denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert.

1

denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). This Court denied petitioner’s prior motions for the

2

appointment of counsel. (Dkt. nos. 8 & 38.) Petitioner has presented nothing that would

3

persuade this Court to alter its prior decision denying the appointment of counsel.

4

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and renewed motion for the appointment of

5

counsel are denied.

6

Respondents have filed a motion for an order to show cause why this action

7

should not be dismissed. (Dkt. no. 41.) Respondents argue that petitioner failed to file

8

an amended petition within the thirty-day period allowed in the Court’s order of

9

November 21, 2013. Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file a

10

response to respondents’ motion. (Dkt. no. 42.) Petitioner then filed a response to the

11

motion. (Dkt. no. 43.) As such, the motion for an extension of time is granted, nunc pro

12

tunc. In his response to the motion to show cause, petitioner explains that he had not

13

yet filed an amended petition because he had been waiting on the Court to rule on his

14

renewed motion for appointment of counsel. On March 12, 2014, petitioner filed an

15

amended petition. (Dkt. no. 47.) Because petitioner has filed his amended petition,

16

respondents’ motion for an order to show cause is denied.

17

Prior to filing the amended petition, on March 6, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for

18

an extension of time (dkt. no. 46) and a motion for the appointment of counsel (dkt. no.

19

45). To the extent petitioner sought an extension of time in which to file the amended

20

petition, the motion is granted, nunc pro tunc. Regarding the motion for the appointment

21

of counsel, the motion is denied for the reasons stated above.

22

It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

23

denial of his motion for the appointment of counsel and a renewed motion for the

24

appointment of counsel (dkt. nos. 39 & 40) are denied.

25

It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for an extension of time in which to

26

file a response to the motion for an order to show cause (dkt. no. 42) is granted nunc

27

pro tunc.

28

///
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

It is further ordered that respondents’ motion for an order to show cause (dkt no.
41) is denied.
It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file the
amended petition (dkt. no. 46) is granted nunc pro tunc.
It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (dkt.
no. 45) is denied.
DATED THIS 10th day of September 2014.

8
9
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3