White v. Baca et al

Filing 6

ORDER directing Clerk to file and e-serve NV AG a copy of petition (NV AG added as counsel for Respondents, NEF sent 8/10/2016); directing Respondents to respond to petition within 45 days. Petitioner to reply within 45 days thereafter. Additional exhibits to be filed with separate index. Hard copies of any exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in Reno. The ECF No. 1 -2 Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/9/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

GILBERT WHITE,

9
10
11

Case No. 3:15-cv-00534-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
Respondents.

12
13

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 2254 by a Nevada state prisoner. Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this

15

action. (ECF No. 4). The Court has reviewed the habeas petition, and it will be served

16

on respondents. Respondents will file a response to the petition, as set forth at the

17

conclusion of this order.

18

Petitioner has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 1-2).

19

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

20

when it determines that the “interests of justice” require representation in a habeas

21

corpus case. Petitioner has no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal

22

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

23

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

24

the Court’s discretion. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert.

25

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

26

denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). The petition on file in this action is sufficiently clear in

27

presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to bring. The issues in this case are not

28

complex. Because counsel is not justified in this instance, petitioner’s motion is denied.

1

It is therefore ordered that the Clerk file and electronically serve the petition (ECF

2

No. 1-1) upon the respondents. The Clerk of Court will add Attorney General Adam Paul

3

Laxalt to the CM/ECF docket sheet as counsel for respondents.

4

It is further ordered that respondents have forty-five (45) days from the entry of

5

this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. In their answer

6

or other response, respondents must address all claims presented in the petition.

7

Respondents must raise all potential affirmative defenses in the initial responsive

8

pleading, including lack of exhaustion and procedural default. Successive motions to

9

dismiss will not be entertained. If an answer is filed, respondents must comply with the

10

requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District

11

Courts under 28 U.S.C. §2254. If an answer is filed, petitioner will have forty-five (45)

12

days from the date of service of the answer to file a reply.

13

It is further ordered that any state court record exhibits filed by respondents must

14

be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The

15

hard copy of all state court record exhibits must be forwarded, for this case, to the staff

16

attorneys in the Reno Division of the Clerk of Court.

17
18
19

It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF
No. 1-2) is denied.
DATED THIS 9th day of August 2016.

20
21
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2