Antonetti v. Filson et al
ORDER granting ECF No. 1 IFP application; directing Clerk to file and e-serve ECF No. 1 -1 petition on Respondents (NV AG added, NEF sent 11/14/2017); directing Clerk to detach ECF No. 1 -2 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and granting t he motion; appointing FPD to represent Petitioner; directing Clerk to e-serve FPD copies of this order and the petition (FPD added, NEFs sent 11/14/2017); giving FPD 30 days to file notice of appearance or indicate its inability to do so. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; copy also sent to P - KR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7 JOSEPH ANTONETTI,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00621-MMD-VPC
FILSON, et al.,
Petitioner Joseph Antonetti has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 1) will be granted. The Court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4,
and it will be docketed and served on respondents.
A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which
petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be
forever barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§2254(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his
petition, he should notify the Court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a
motion to amend his petition to add the claim.
Petitioner has also submitted a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2).
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus
proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999
F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary.
Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987);
Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984).
However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial
of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person
of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney,
801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970). Here,
Antonetti is serving multiple sentences, including two terms of life without the possibility
of parole. Moreover, it appears that some of the legal issues he wishes to raise may be
complex. Therefore, Antonetti’s motion for counsel will be granted.
It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 1) is granted.
It is further ordered that the Clerk file and electronically serve the petition (ECF No.
1-1) on the respondents.
It is further ordered that the Clerk add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General,
as counsel for respondents.
It is further ordered that the Clerk detach petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 1-3).
It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is granted.
It is further ordered that the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada
(FPD) is appointed to represent petitioner.
It is further ordered that the Clerk electronically serve the FPD a copy of this order,
together with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-1). The FPD will
have thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order to file a notice of appearance or
to indicate to the Court its inability to represent petitioner in these proceedings.
It is further ordered that after counsel has appeared for petitioner in this case, the
Court will issue a scheduling order, which will, among other things, set a deadline for the
filing of an amended petition.
DATED THIS 13th day of November 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
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?