Parra v. McDaniel et al

Filing 16

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents' 15 motion for enlargement of time to respond to the 9 petition is GRANTED. Respondents shall file their response on or before November 17, 2011. FURTHER ORDERED, petitioner's [13 ] motion for district judge to reconsider 8 order is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED, petitioner's 14 motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 10/4/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
JULIO SMITH PARRA,
9
Petitioner,
10
vs.
11
E.K. MCDANIEL, et al.,
12
13

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

3:11-cv-00416-ECR-WGC
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is respondents’ motion for enlargement of time to respond to the petition

16

for a writ of habeas corpus (docket #15). Respondents’ motion is granted. Respondents shall file their

17

response to the petition on or before November 17, 2011.

18

Also before the court is petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order

19

denying his second motion for appointment of counsel (docket #13), as well as a third motion for the

20

appointment of counsel (docket #14). There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal

21

habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999

22

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

23

Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730

24

F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if

25

the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and

26

where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his

1

claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970).

2

The court notes that the motion for reconsideration is not appropriate at this time because

3

a party may only challenge a final judgment or order in such a motion, and the underlying motion for

4

counsel had been denied without prejudice. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).

5

However, petitioner proceeded to file a third motion for appointment of counsel; thus the court need not

6

exercise its discretion to construe the motion for reconsideration as a renewed motion for counsel.

7

Moreover, the current motion for appointment of counsel (docket #14) is denied. The petition in this

8

action appears sufficiently clear in presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to raise. Petitioner has

9

not raised any new issues in his successive motions for appointment of counsel, and counsel is not

10

justified in this action. The motion is denied with prejudice, and further motions for counsel will not

11

be entertained in this case.

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion for enlargement of time to

13

respond to the petition (docket #15) is GRANTED. Respondents shall file their response on or before

14

November 17, 2011.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for district judge to reconsider
order (docket #13) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel
(docket #14) is DENIED with prejudice.
DATED this 4th day of October 2011.

20
21

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
2