Stidham v. Wickham et al

Filing 21

ORDER that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 13 ) is DENIED; respondents' motion for extension of time to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 14 ) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; respondents' mot ion for leave to file PSI under seal (ECF No. 19 ) is GRANTED; petitioner shall file his reply in support of the petition by <b.6/9/2018. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 4/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JASON EDWARD STIDHAM,

10

Case No. 3:17-cv-00500-HDM-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
HAROLD WICKHAM, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

Petitioner Jason Edward Stidham has submitted a pro se petition for writ of

15

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the court is Stidham’s motion for

16

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 13).

17

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus

18

proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999

19

F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally

20

discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481

21

U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469

22

U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case

23

are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the

24

petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his

25

claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th

26

Cir.1970). Here, Stidham’s petition is clear in presenting the issues that he wishes to

27

raise, and the legal issues are not particularly complex. Therefore, counsel is not

28

justified. Stidham’s motion is denied.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for extension of time to file
a responsive pleading (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for leave to file PSI under
seal (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall file his reply in support of the
petition, if any, within forty-five (45) days of the date of this order.

9
DATED: April 25, 2018.
10
11
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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