Jackson v. Wickham et al
Filing
7
ORDER that the Clerk is directed to file and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition for a writ of habeas corpus ECF No. 1 -1 on the respondents (e-served on 10/13/2017); clerk directed to add AG, as counsel for respondents; respondents will have until 01/10/2018 to answer or otherwise respond to the petition; petitioner will have (45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply; any exhibits filed by the parties must be filed with a separate index of exhibits iden tifying the exhibits by number or letter; the parties SHALL SEND courtesy copies of all exhibits in this case to the Clerk, 400 South Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89510, directed to the attention of staff attorney; Clerk SHALL FILE petitioner's motion for appoint of counsel ECF No. 1 -3; the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/13/2017. (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
WAYNE A. JACKSON,
10
11
12
Petitioner, ORDER
v.
HAROLD WICKHAM, et al.,
Respondents.
13
14
Case No. 3:17-cv-00098-LRH-WGC
Petitioner Wayne A. Jackson has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas
15
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has now paid the filing fee (see ECF No. 6).
16
The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and it shall be docketed
17
and served on respondents.
18
A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which
19
petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be
20
forever barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C.
21
§2254(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his
22
petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a
23
motion to amend his petition to add the claim.
24
Petitioner has also submitted a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-3).
25
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus
26
proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999
27
F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally
28
discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481
1
1
U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469
2
U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case
3
are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the
4
petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his
5
claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th
6
Cir.1970). Here, Jackson’s petition is clear in presenting the issues that he wishes to
7
raise, and the legal issues are not particularly complex. Therefore, counsel is not
8
justified at this time. Jackson’s motion is denied.
9
10
11
12
13
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY
SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) 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 respondents shall file a response to the petition,
14
including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the
15
petition, with any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to
16
the normal briefing schedule under the local rules. Any response filed shall comply with
17
the remaining provisions below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 5.
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents
19
in this case shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other
20
words, the court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either
21
in seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the
22
answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to
23
potential waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that consolidates
24
their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to
25
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If
26
respondents do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall
27
do so within the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall
28
specifically direct their argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set
2
1
forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no
2
procedural defenses, including exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an
3
answer. All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by
4
motion to dismiss.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents
6
shall specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state
7
court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from
9
service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition,
10
with any other requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to
11
the normal briefing schedule under the local rules.
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed
13
herein by either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits
14
identifying the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall
15
be identified by the number of the exhibit in the attachment.
16
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties SHALL SEND courtesy copies of all
17
exhibits in this case to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, directed
18
to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the outside of the mailing address label. Additionally,
19
in the future, all parties shall provide courtesy copies of any additional exhibits submitted
20
to the court in this case, in the manner described above.
21
22
23
24
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file petitioner’s motion for
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel
(ECF No. 1-3) is DENIED.
DATED this 13th day of October, 2017.
26
27
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
3
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?