Turner v. Baker et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner will have until and including 09/22/2017 to respond to ECF No. 10 Motion to Dismiss. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in ECF No. 5 Order remain in effect. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 07/11/2017. (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
10
11

JEREMY TURNER,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00139-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

12
13

RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

14
15

This case is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Nevada prisoner

16

Jeremy Turner. On June 5, 2017, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss, along with

17

some 116 exhibits, representing the state-court record in Turner’s case (ECF Nos. 10,

18

11, 12, 13, 14, 16). Turner is due to respond to the motion to dismiss by August 4, 2017.

19

(See Order entered April 4, 2017 (ECF No. 5) (60 days for response to motion to

20

dismiss).)

21

On July 10, 2017, Turner filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 18).

22

The Court previously denied a motion by Turner for appointment of counsel in this case.

23

(See Order entered April 4, 2017 (ECF No. 5).) The Court remains of the view that

24

appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case. Turner’s motion for appointment of

25

counsel will be denied.

26

Respondents’ motion to dismiss raises only the issue of exhaustion of Turner’s

27

claims in state court — i.e. whether Turner has made in state court the claims that he

28

makes here in federal court. It appears that respondents have filed sufficient material from

1

the state-court record for the Court to resolve those issues. The exhaustion issues turn

2

on well-settled legal principles.

3
4
5
6

However, the Court will, sua sponte, grant Turner an extension of time to respond
to the motion to dismiss.
It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 18) is denied.

7

It is further ordered that petitioner will have until and including September 22, 2017,

8

to respond to respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10). In all other respects, the

9

schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered April 4, 2017 (ECF No. 5)

10
11

will remain in effect.
DATED THIS 11th day of July 2017.

12
13
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2