DeLoney v. Wickham et al
ORDER denying ECF Nos. 11 Motion to grant attorney, 20 Motion for appointment of counsel, 21 Motion to suspend case until motion for counsel is heard, and 22 motion to amend motion for counsel; granting nunc pro tunc EC F No. 9 Motion to Extend Time to file a responsive pleading; denying ECF No. 10 Motion to squash/not grant respondents' motion for extension of time; Petitioner must file his opposition to the motion to dismiss ECF No. 13 by 5/17/2017. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 04/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:16-cv-00108-MMD-VPC
WICKHAM, et al.,
This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is
before the Court on petitioner Donald Deloney’s second and third motions for appointment
of counsel. (ECF Nos. 11, 20.) He also filed a motion to supplement the third motion for
counsel. (ECF No. 22.)
As the Court previously stated in this case, there is no constitutional right to
appointed counsel for 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). The court denied Deloney’s first motion for
appointment of counsel because the petition appears sufficiently clear in presenting the
issues that he wishes to raise, and the legal issues are not particularly complex. Deloney
now argues that Warm Springs Correctional Center does not provide physical access to
the law library in order that he might consult case law and that the prison law clerks have
little understanding of the law. Again, Deloney has fairly presented his claims and does
not present new arguments here to persuade the Court that due process requires counsel
in this case. Therefore, Deloney’s motions for counsel are denied.
It is therefore ordered that the following motions filed by petitioner: motion to grant
attorney (ECF No. 11); motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20); motion to
suspend case until motion for counsel is heard (ECF No. 21); and motion to amend motion
for counsel (ECF No. 22) are all denied.
It is further ordered that respondents’ motion for extension of time to file a
responsive pleading (ECF No. 9) is granted nunc pro tunc.
It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion to squash/not grant respondents’
motion for extension of time (ECF No. 10) is denied.
It is further ordered that petitioner must file his opposition to the motion to dismiss,
if any, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
DATED THIS 17th day of April 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?