Mundo v. Director of NDOC et al
ORDER that the Clerk file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Clerk directed to add AG Adam Laxalt as counsel for respondents; Clerk to e-serve respondents a copy of the petition and this order (e-served on 10/ 11/2017); respondents shall have 45 days from the date on which the petition was served to answer or otherwise respond to the petition; any exhibits filed by the parties shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by num ber or letter and hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwardedfor this caseto the staff attorneys in Las Vegas; motion for appointment of counsel ECF No. 6 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 10/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JONATHAN WAYNE MUNDO,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00322-HDM-VPC
DIRECTOR OF N.D.O.C., et al.,
Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The court has reviewed the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
This action appears to be untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). However, the court wants
more of the state-court record before making that determination. Therefore, the court will serve the
petition upon respondents for a response.
Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 6). Whenever the court
determines that the interests of justice so require, counsel may be appointed to any financially
eligible person who is seeking habeas corpus relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “[T]he district
court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to
articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v.
Look, 718 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1983). There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas
proceedings. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991). The factors to consider are not
separate from the underlying claims, but are intrinsically enmeshed with them. Weygandt, 718 F.2d
at 954. After reviewing the petition, the court concludes that appointment of counsel is not
IT IS THEREFORE 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 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 upon respondents a
copy of the petition and this order. In addition, the clerk shall return to petitioner a copy of the
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date
on which the petition was served to answer or otherwise respond to the petition. Respondents shall
raise all potential affirmative defenses in the initial responsive pleading, including untimeliness,
lack of exhaustion, and procedural default. Successive motions to dismiss will not be entertained.
If respondents file and serve an answer, then they shall comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and then petitioner shall have forty-five
(45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply. If respondents file a motion,
then the briefing schedule of Local Rule LR 7-2 shall apply.
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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 6) is
DATED: October 11, 2017.
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN
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?