Manley v. Baker et al

Filing 3

ORDER granting 1 IFP application; directing Clerk to file and e-serve 1 -1 petition on respondents (NEF sent 1/20/2015); directing Clerk to file, and denying, 1 -2 motion for appointment of counsel; directing Cl erk to file, and granting, 1 -3 motion to extend copywork limit, $20 to be used in this proceeding only. Respondents to respond to petition with 90 days; Petitioner to reply within 30 days thereafter. Any exhibits shall be filed with separate index. Hard copies of any exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in Reno. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; copy also sent to NDOC Chief of Inmate Services - KR) Modified on 1/20/2015 (KR).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10

CHARLES STEPHEN MANLEY,
11
Petitioner,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00580-RCJ-VPC

12
vs.

ORDER

13
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
Petitioner Charles Stephen Manley, a Nevada prisoner, has submitted an application to proceed
17
in forma pauperis (ECF #1) and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
18
(ECF #1-1). The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and the petition shall be
19
docketed and served upon the respondents.
20
A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which petitioner is
21
aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever barred from seeking
22
federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is
23
aware of any claim not included in his petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible,
24
perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the claim
25
Also before the court is petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF #1-2). There
26
is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania
27
v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision
28

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Petitioner has also filed a motion to extend prison copywork limit (ECF #1-3). A court may

10

order a prison to provide limited photocopying when it is necessary for an inmate to provide copies to

11

the court and other parties. See, e.g., Allen v. Clark County Detention Center, 2011 WL 886343, at *

12

2 (D. Nev. March 11, 2011). As petitioner will have an opportunity to respond to or oppose

13

respondents’ response to his petition, petitioner’s motion is granted. Petitioner shall be granted an

14

additional $20 in credit for copywork to be used in this habeas proceeding only.

15
16
17
18

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.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

pursuant to Habeas Rule 4.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that
-2-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

rules.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20
21
22
23
24
25

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall file petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF #1-2).
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF #1-2)
is DENIED.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall file petitioner’s motion to extend copywork
limit (ECF #1-3).

26
27
28
-3-

1

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to extend copywork limit (ECF #1-3)

2

is GRANTED, but is limited to $20 in credit for copywork to be used in this habeas proceeding only.

3

th
DATED: This ___ day of January, 2015.
Dated, this 20 day of January, 2015.

4

___________________________________

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-