Howard v. Baker et al
ORDERED that the IFP application (ECF No. 1 ) is GRANTED. Clerk shall file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2 ) is GRANTED. FPD is provisionally appointed to represent petitioner. FPD shall have until 1/19/2017 to undertake direct representation of petitioner or to indicate inability to do so. Clerk shall add AG as counsel for respondents. Clerk shall E-serve both the AG and the FPD a copy of the petition and a copy of this order. (E-service 12/20/2016.) AG shall enter a notice of appearance by 1/9/2017, but no further response shall be required from respondents until further order of the court. Any exhibits filed shall be file with separate index as specified herein. A hard copy of any additional state court exhibits shall be forwarded to the Las Vegas staff attorneys. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 12/20/2016 to reflect copy of order mailed to P at ESP (DRM).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
NICHOLAS BARKSDALE HOWARD,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00631-RCJ-VPC
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a motion for the appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 2). The court finds that petitioner is unable to pay the filing fee. Petitioner is
unable to afford counsel, and the issues presented warrant the appointment of counsel. See 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
1) is GRANTED. Petitioner need not pay the filing fee of five dollars ($5.00).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall file the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No.
2) is GRANTED. The Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed to represent petitioner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender shall have thirty (30) days
from the date that this order is entered to undertake direct representation of petitioner or to indicate
to the court his inability to represent petitioner in these proceedings. If the Federal Public Defender
does undertake representation of petitioner, he shall then have sixty (60) days to file an amended
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If the Federal Public Defender is unable to represent petitioner,
then the court shall appoint alternate counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither the foregoing deadline nor any extension thereof
signifies or will signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period established.
Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal limitation period
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and timely asserting claims.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General
for the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall electronically serve both the Attorney
General of the State of Nevada and the Federal Public Defender a copy of the petition and a copy of
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ counsel shall enter a notice of appearance
within twenty (20) days of entry of this order, but no further response shall be required from
respondents until further order of the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any exhibits filed by the parties shall be filed with a
separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The CM/ECF attachments
that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers (or letter or letters) of the exhibits
in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be
forwarded—for this case—to the staff attorneys in Las Vegas. The court otherwise waives
compliance with Local Rule LR IA 10-3(e) with regard to the exhibits.
Dated: December 20, 2016.
ROBERT C. JONES
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?