Yaag v. LeGrand et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying Petitioner's 6 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/27/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

DONALD STEVEN YAAG,

9

Petitioner,
ROBERT LeGRAND, et al.,
Respondents.

12
13
14

ORDER

v.

10
11

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

On October 16, 2014, the Court entered an order denying petitioner’s motion for

16

the appointment of counsel, directing the Clerk to serve the petition on respondents,

17

and setting a deadline for respondents to file a response to the petition. (Dkt. no. 4).

18

Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his motion for

19

the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. no. 6). When a party challenges an interlocutory

20

order, a district court may rescind, reconsider, or amend a previous order pursuant to its

21

inherent power to modify interlocutory orders before the entry of final judgment. City of

22

Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886-87 (9th Cir.

23

1987).

24

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006(a)(2)(B), the district court has discretion to appoint

25

counsel when it determines that the “interests of justice” require representation. There is

26

no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding.

27

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428

28

(9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v.

1

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

2

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

3

of October 16, 2014, this Court found that the petition is well-written and sufficiently

4

clear in presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to bring, and the issues are not

5

complex. Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel was denied. Nothing in

6

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration causes this Court to alter its decision that the

7

appointment of counsel is not justified in this case.

8
9
10

It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the order
denying the appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 6) is denied.
DATED THIS 27th day of October 2014.

11
12
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2