Snure v. Warden et al

Filing 13

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that P's 11 motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. FURTH ORD that P's 12 motion for an extension of time to file a motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot. FURTH ORD that P is granted 30 days from the date of entry of this order in which to file a response to the 6 motion to dismiss the petition. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 7/15/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

THEODORE C. SNURE,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WARDEN, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/

3:11-cv-00344-ECR-RAM
ORDER

15
16

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

17

by a Nevada state prisoner. By order filed May 16, 2011, the Court directed a response to the

18

petition. (ECF No. 3). Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on June 29, 2011, which is pending

19

before the Court. (ECF No. 6).

20

On July 14, 2011, petitioner filed a motion for an enlargement of time in which to file a

21

motion for the appointment of counsel, and also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF

22

Nos. 11 & 12).

23

Regarding the motion for counsel, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a

24

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

25

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

26

discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023

1

(1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984).

2

However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel

3

would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person of such limited

4

education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also

5

Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970). The petition on file in this action is well-written

6

and sufficiently clear in presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to bring. The issues in this case

7

are not complex. It does not appear that counsel is not justified in this instance. The motion for

8

appointment of counsel is denied. Moreover, the motion for an extension of time to file the motion

9

for counsel is denied as moot. The Court will, however, grant petitioner an extension of time to file

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

a response to the pending motion to dismiss, as set forth at the conclusion of this order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel
(ECF No. 11) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a
motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of
entry of this order in which to file a response to the pending motion to dismiss the petition.
Dated this 15th day of July, 2011.

18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2