DeCastro v. LeGrand et al

Filing 3

ORDER granting 1 motion to proceed IFP. Clerk shall file and electronically serve petition on respondents. Response to petition due within 90 days. Hard copy of state court record exhibits shall be forwarded to staff attorneys in Reno. Clerk shall detach and file motion for appointment of counsel 1 -4. Motion is denied. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/19/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10

CASTRO V. DECASTRO,
11
Petitioner,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00529-RCJ-WGC

12
vs.

ORDER

13
ROBERT LEGRAND, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
17
18
Castro V. DeCastro, a Nevada prisoner, has submitted an application to proceed in forma
19
pauperis (ECF # 1) and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF #1-1).
20
The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and the petition shall be docketed and
21
served upon the respondents.
22
A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which petitioner is
23
aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever barred from seeking
24
federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is
25
aware of any claim not included in his petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible,
26
perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the claim. Specifically, the court notes that
27
petitioner sets forth nine grounds in his petition. At the end of the nine grounds, he states “also, see
28

1

attached: direct appeal and postconviction habeas for additional grounds and arguments” (#1-1, p. 19).

2

Petitioner is expressly advised that this vague reference to “additional grounds” does not state any

3

additional grounds in this petition. Currently before the court are the nine grounds set forth on pages

4

3-19 of the petition. No other grounds or arguments are before the court. If petitioner seeks to include

5

any other grounds, he shall take action as described above as soon as possible.

6

Also before the court is petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF #1-4). There

7

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

8

v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision

9

to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986),

10

cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469

11

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

12

denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person of such

13

limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see

14

also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970). The petition on file in this action appears

15

sufficiently clear in presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to raise, and the legal issues do not

16

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

17
18
19
20

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF #1) is GRANTED.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE
the petition (ECF #1-1) on the respondents.

21

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the petition, including

22

potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the petition, with any requests

23

for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local

24

rules. Any response filed shall comply with the remaining provisions below, which are entered

25

pursuant to Habeas Rule 4.

26

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this case

27

shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, the court does not

28

wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in seriatum fashion in multiple successive
-2-

1

motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to

2

dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that

3

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

4

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

5

dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall do so within the single motion to

6

dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically direct their argument to the standard for

7

dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In

8

short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an answer. All

9

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

10

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents shall

11

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

12

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

13

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of the

14

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

15

relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local

16

rules.

17

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed herein by

18

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

19

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

20

numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits

21

shall be forwarded – for this case – to the staff attorneys in Reno.

22
23
24
25
26
27

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall detach and file the motion for appointment
of counsel (ECF #1-4).
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF #1-4)
is DENIED.
Dated: This ___ day of of November, 2014.
Dated, this 19th day November, 2014.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
-3-