Hill v. Baker et al

Filing 10

ORDER - Petitioner's motion to reopen this action (ECF No. 7 ) is GRANTED. The stay is lifted by this order, the Clerk shall REOPEN THE FILE in this action. Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (ECF No. 5 ) on the resp ondents. (E-service 4/12/2017.) Clerk shall add AG as counsel for respondents. Petitioner's motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 8 and 9 ) are both DENIED. Answer/response to the petition due by 7/11/2017. Reply to response due 45 days after service of answer/response. Any additional state court record exhibits filed herein by either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits as specified herein. The parties SHALL SEND courtesy copies of all exhibits in this case to Reno Staff Attorney. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

RICKIE L. HILL,

10

Case No. 3:14-cv-00680-RCJ-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

15

On February 11, 2015, this court granted a stay and administratively closed

16

petitioner Rickie L. Hill’s federal habeas corpus action while he litigated his state petition

17

(ECF No. 4).

18

Hill’s further state-court proceedings have concluded, and he has now returned

19

to this court seeking to reopen this case (ECF No. 7). Good cause appearing, this

20

action is reopened. The petition shall be served on respondents.

21

A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which

22

petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

motion to amend his petition to add the claim.

27

Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a supplement to

28

the motion (ECF Nos. 8 and 9). There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987);
Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint counsel is
generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert.
denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities
of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process,
and where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of
fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v.
Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970). Here, the court notes that Hill is serving four
consecutive terms of ten years to life. However, his petition is clear in presenting the
issues that he wishes to raise, and the legal issues are not particularly complex.
Therefore, counsel is not justified at this time. Hill’s motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to reopen this action (ECF
No. 7) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as the stay is lifted by this order, the Clerk shall
REOPEN THE FILE in this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY
SERVE the petition (ECF No. 5) on the respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada
Attorney General, as counsel for respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel
and supplemental motion for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 8 and 9) are both
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the petition,
including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the
petition, with any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to

27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

the normal briefing schedule under the local rules. Any response filed shall comply with
the remaining provisions below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 5.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents
in this case shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other
words, the court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either
in seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the
answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to
potential waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that consolidates
their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If
respondents do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall
do so within the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall
specifically direct their argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set
forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no
procedural defenses, including exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an
answer. All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by
motion to dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents
shall specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state
court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from
service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition,
with any other requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to
the normal briefing schedule under the local rules.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed
herein by either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits

27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

identifying the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall
be identified by the number of the exhibit in the attachment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties SHALL SEND courtesy copies of all
exhibits in this case to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, directed
to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the outside of the mailing address label. Additionally,
in the future, all parties shall provide courtesy copies of any additional exhibits submitted
to the court in this case, in the manner described above.

8
9
DATED: 12 April 2017.
10
11
12

ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4