Ruffin v. Baca et al

Filing 16

ORDER directing Clerk to detach and file the motion for appointment of counsel ECF No. 1 -3; motion for appointment of counsel is denied; petitioner to file response to respondents' motion to dismiss ECF No. 9 by 03/11/2018; Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal ECF No. 11 is granted. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9 GISTARVE RUFFIN, JR.,
10

Case No. 3:16-cv-00157-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

Before the Court is petitioner Gistarve Ruffin, Jr.’s motion for appointment of

15

counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition (ECF No. 1-3). There is no

16

constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding.

17

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428

18

(9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v.

19

Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor

20

v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). However,

21

counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel

22

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

23

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

24

at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970). Here, Ruffin’s petition

25

is sufficiently clear in setting forth his claims, and the legal issues do not appear to be

26

complex. Therefore, Ruffin’s motion for counsel is denied.

27
28

It is therefore ordered that the Clerk detach and file the motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 1-3).

1

It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

2

It is further ordered that petitioner must file his response to respondents’ motion to

3
4
5
6

dismiss, if any, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
It is further ordered that respondents’ motion to file petitioner’s presentence
investigation report under seal (ECF No. 11) is granted.
DATED THIS 9th day of February 2018.

7
8
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2