Hanley v. Baca et al

Filing 3

ORDER IFP application 1 is granted. Clerk shall file and electronically serve petition on respondents. Respondents shall file response within 90 days. Hard copy of state court record exhibits shall be forwarded to the staff attorneys in Reno. Clerk shall detach and file motion for appointment of counsel 1 -4. Motion is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/20/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

DERAC A. HANLEY,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:14-cv-00521-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
Respondents.

14

A Nevada prisoner, deRac A. Hanley, has submitted an application to proceed in

15

forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1) and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

16

U.S.C. § 2254 (dkt. no. 1-1). The Court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas

17

Rule 4, and the petition shall be docketed and 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

20

forever barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§2254(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his

22

petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a

23

motion to amend his petition to add the claim.

24

Also before the Court is petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (dkt.

25

no. 1-4). There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas

26

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

27

Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally

28

discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481

1

U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469

2

U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case

3

are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the

4

petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his

5

claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th

6

Cir.1970). The petition on file in this action appears sufficiently clear in presenting the

7

issues that petitioner wishes to raise, and the legal issues do not appear to be

8

particularly complex; therefore, counsel is not justified. Petitioner’s motion is denied.

9
10
11
12

It therefore is ordered that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(dkt. no. 1) is granted.
It further is ordered that the Clerk shall file and electronically serve the petition
(dkt. no. 1-1) on the respondents.

13

It further is ordered that respondents shall file a response to the petition,

14

including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the

15

petition, with any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to

16

the normal briefing schedule under the local rules. Any response filed shall comply with

17

the remaining provisions below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 4.

18

It further is ordered that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this

19

case shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words,

20

the court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in

21

seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer.

22

Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to potential

23

waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that consolidates their

24

procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28

25

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents

26

do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall do so within

27

the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically direct their

28

argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v.
2

1

Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses,

2

including exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an answer. All procedural

3

defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss.

4

It further is ordered that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents shall

5

specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state

6

court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.

7

It further is ordered that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of the

8

answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition, with any other

9

requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal

10

briefing schedule under the local rules.

11

It further is ordered that any additional state court record exhibits filed herein by

12

either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying

13

the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be

14

identified by the number or numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of

15

any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded ― for this case ― to the

16

staff attorneys in Reno.

17
18
19
20
21

It further is ordered that the Clerk of Court shall detach and file petitioner’s
motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 1-4).
It further is ordered that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 14) is denied.
DATED THIS 20th day of November 2014.

22
23
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3