Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 6

ORDER - Petitioner's 1 application to proceed IFP is GRANTED. Clerk shall file and electronically serve the 1 -1, 1 -2, 1 -3 petition on respondents (served 9/17/2013). Respondents to answer or otherwise respond to petition within 45 day s. If an answer is filed, petitioner shall have 45 days to reply. Petitioner to serve respondents copy of every pleading, motion, or document submitted for consideration by the court. Petitioner shall include with original paper submitted for filin g a certificate of mailing. Any state court record exhibits filed by respondents shall be filed with separate index. Hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in Reno. The Clerk sh all FILE petitioner's 1 -4 motion to file petition that exceeds pages and petitioner's 1 -5 motion for appointment of counsel. Petitioner's motion to file petition that exceeds pages is GRANTED. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See document for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 09/16/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 MICHAEL LEON WILLIAMS, 9 Petitioner, 10 vs. 11 12 RENEE BAKER, et al., 13 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 3:13-cv-00334-RCJ-WGC ORDER 14 Petitioner Michael Leon Williams has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF # 1-1). His application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 16 # 1) is granted. 17 The habeas petition shall be served upon the respondents. 18 A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which 19 petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever barred 20 from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) (successive petitions). If 21 petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his petition, he should notify the court of that as soon 22 as possible, perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the claim. 23 Petitioner has also submitted a motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF #1-5). There 24 is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. 25 Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision 26 to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. 1 denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 2 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of 3 counsel 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 appears sufficiently 6 clear in presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to raise. Counsel is not justified at this time. 7 Petitioner’s motion is denied. 8 9 10 11 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF #1) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall FILE and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (ECF #s 1-1; 1-2; 1-3) upon the respondents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from entry 13 of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. In their answer or other 14 response, respondents shall address any claims presented by petitioner in his petition as well as any claims 15 presented by petitioner in any Statement of Additional Claims. Respondents shall raise all potential 16 affirmative defenses in the initial responsive pleading, including lack of exhaustion and procedural 17 default. Successive motions to dismiss will not be entertained. If an answer is filed, respondents shall 18 comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District 19 Courts under 28 U.S.C. §2254. If an answer is filed, petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the 20 date of service of the answer to file a reply. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon the attorney 22 general of the State of Nevada a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document he submits for 23 consideration by the court. Petitioner shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a 24 certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to the attorney general. 25 26 2 1 The court may disregard any paper that does not include a certificate of service. After respondents appear 2 in this action, petitioner shall make such service upon the particular deputy attorney general assigned to 3 the case. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any state court record exhibits filed by respondents 5 herein shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The 6 CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers (or letter or 7 letters) of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall 8 be forwarded – for this case – to the staff attorneys in Reno. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall FILE petitioner’s motion to file 10 petition that exceeds pages (ECF #1-4) and petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF #1-5). 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to file petition that exceeds pages 12 is GRANTED. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is 14 DENIED. 15 Dated this 16th day of September, 2013. 16 17 18 ___________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?