Yaag v. LeGrand et al
Filing
4
ORDER Motion for appointment of counsel 1 -2 is denied. Clerk shall file and electronically serve petition upon respondents. Respondents shall have 45 days to answer or otherwise respond. Hard copy of state court record exhibits shall be forwarded to staff attorneys in Reno. Henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon AG copy of all pleadings submitted to the Court. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/16/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
DONALD STEVEN YAAG,
9
10
11
Petitioner,
14
ORDER
v.
ROBERT LeGRAND, et al.,
Respondents.
12
13
Case No. 3:14-cv-00295-MMD-WGC
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.
15
Petitioner has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. no. 1-2).
16
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006(a)(2)(B), the district court has discretion to appoint
17
counsel when it determines that the “interests of justice” require representation. There is
18
no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
19
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428
20
(9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v.
21
Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor
22
v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). The petition
23
on file in this action is well-written and sufficiently clear in presenting the issues that
24
petitioner wishes to bring. The issues in this case are not complex. It does not appear
25
that counsel is justified in this instance. The motion for the appointment of counsel is
26
denied.
27
28
It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (dkt.
no. 1-2) is denied.
1
2
It is further ordered that the Clerk shall file and electronically serve the petition
upon the respondents.
3
It is further ordered that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from entry of
4
this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. In their answer
5
or other response, respondents shall address all claims presented in the petition.
6
Respondents shall raise all potential affirmative defenses in the initial responsive
7
pleading, including lack of exhaustion and procedural default. Successive motions to
8
dismiss will not be entertained. If an answer is filed, respondents shall comply with the
9
requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District
10
Courts under 28 U.S.C. §2254. If an answer is filed, petitioner shall have forty-five (45)
11
days from the date of service of the answer to file a reply.
12
It is further ordered that any state court record exhibits filed by respondents shall
13
be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The
14
hard copy of all state court record exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to the staff
15
attorneys in the Reno Division of the Clerk of Court. The hard copy of all exhibits
16
submitted to the Court shall be tabbed and shall be bound along the top edge of the
17
pages.
18
It is further ordered that, henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon the Attorney
19
General of the State of Nevada a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document he
20
submits for consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original paper
21
submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the
22
document was mailed to the Attorney General. The Court may disregard any paper that
23
does not include a certificate of service. After respondents appear in this action,
24
petitioner shall make such service upon the particular Deputy Attorney General
25
assigned to the case.
26
DATED THIS 16th day of October 2014.
27
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
2
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?