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)

Download PDF
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?