Morrow v. Williams et al

Filing 16

ORDER that petitioner's second motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8 ) is denied; respondents' motion for extension of time to file a response to the petition (ECF No. 7 ) is granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10
11

TROY ANTHONY MORROW,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00580-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,

12

Respondents.

13
14

Petitioner Troy Anthony Morrow’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

15

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the Court on his second motion for appointment of counsel

16

(“Motion”) (ECF No. 8). His application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted

17

(ECF No. 1). As the Court previously stated, there is no constitutional right to appointed

18

counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551,

19

555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint

20

counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986),

21

cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert.

22

denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of

23

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

24

where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly

25

presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423

26

F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970).

27

The Motion is a form motion that does not raise any additional bases for counsel.

28

This Court previously stated that the petition is clear in presenting the issues that Morrow

1

wishes to raise, and the legal issues are not particularly complex. The Court remains

2

unpersuaded that counsel is warranted. The Court therefore denies the Motion.

3
4
5
6

It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s second motion for appointment of counsel
(ECF No. 8) is denied.
It Is further ordered that respondents’ motion for extension of time to file a response
to the petition (ECF No. 7) is granted nunc pro tunc.

7
8

DATED THIS 25th day of April 2018.

9
10
11

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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