Romano v. Legrande et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying ECF No. 41 Motion for Appointment of Cousel; granting in part ECF No. 42 Motion for Extension of Time to file Reply to ECF No. 38 Answer to Amended Habeas Petition. Reply due by 9/3/2017. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 07/20/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10
11

ROBERT ROMANO,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00187-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

12
13

LeGRANDE, et al.,
Respondents.

14
15
16

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

17

U.S.C. § 2254 by a Nevada state prisoner. On October 18, 2016, the Court granted in

18

part and denied in part respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended petition. (ECF No.

19

32.) The Court gave petitioner options for dealing with his unexhausted claims and set

20

deadlines for the filing of an answer and a reply. (Id.) On November 9, 2016, petitioner

21

filed a declaration abandoning the unexhausted claims in the amended petition. (ECF No.

22

33.) On January 26, 2017, respondents filed an answer to the remaining grounds of the

23

amended petition. (ECF No. 38.) Petitioner then filed a motion seeking the appointment

24

of counsel and a motion for an extension of time in which to file a reply to the answer.

25

(ECF Nos. 41, 42.)

26

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

Petitioner’s present motion for the appointment of counsel is his third attempt to persuade

4

the Court to appoint counsel in this case. Petitioner’s first motion seeking counsel was

5

denied by order filed October 20, 2014. (ECF Nos. 5, 8.) In the first order denying the

6

appointment of counsel, this Court found that the petitioner was sufficiently clear in

7

presenting his issues and that the issues of this case were not so complex as to require

8

counsel. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying

9

counsel. (ECF No. 9.) By order filed November 3, 2014, this Court denied petitioner’s

10

motion for reconsideration, noting that nothing in his motion caused the Court to alter its

11

decision to deny the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10.) After respondents filed their

12

answer to the remaining claims of the amended petition, petitioner again seeks the

13

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 41.) The Court takes note of the fact that, in this case,

14

petitioner has filed two petitions, numerous motions, an opposition to respondents’ motion

15

to dismiss, and an abandonment of claims. The amended petition on file in this action is

16

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

17

case are no more complex now than they were previously. Petitioner’s motion for the

18

appointment of counsel is denied.

19

On February 16, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time in which to

20

file his reply to the answer. (ECF No. 42.) Petitioner’s reply was due on March 13, 2017.

21

Petitioner seeks an extension of 225 days to file his reply to the answer. Respondents

22

partially oppose the motion, arguing that petitioner’s request is excessive. (ECF No. 43.)

23

Petitioner argues that he needs additional time to file the reply because he cannot

24

physically enter the law library and must rely on a paging system to obtain legal research

25

materials. The Court will grant petitioner a reasonable extension of time to file his reply.

26

Given the time that has already elapsed from the date of petitioner’s motion to the present

27

date, petitioner’s request for an extension to file the reply is granted in part, to the extent

28

that the Court grants petitioner forty-five (45) additional days to file the reply.

1
2

It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF
No. 41) is denied.

3

It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply

4

(ECF No. 42) is granted in part. Petitioner’s reply must be filed within forty-five (45) days

5

from the date of entry of this order.

6

DATED THIS 20th day of July 2017.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE