Grow v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 6

ORDER the Clerk to separately file the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the motion for appointment of counsel attached to the IFP ECF No. 1 ; Clerk directed to add AG as counsel for respondents and serve respondents a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and a copy of this order (e-served on 12/04/2017); respondents will have sixty (60) days to answer or otherwise respond to the petition; petitioner will have sixty (60) days to file a reply to the answer; if respondents file a motion to dismiss, petitioner will have sixty (60) days to file a response to the motion to dismiss and then respondents will have thirty (30) days to file a reply to petitioner's response; petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/4/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10

JOSHUA RYAN GROW,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00637-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

11
12

JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14
15

This habeas corpus action is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Joshua

16

Ryan Grow, a Nevada prisoner. Grow filed his habeas petition, along with an application

17

to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for appointment of counsel, on October 23,

18

2017 (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-2). On October 25, 2017, the Court denied Grow’s in forma

19

pauperis application and ordered him to pay the filing fee (ECF No. 4). On November 29,

20

2017, Grow paid the filing fee (ECF No. 5).

21

Therefore, the Court has reviewed Grow's habeas petition pursuant to Rule 4 of

22

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court

23

will direct the Clerk of the Court to serve the petition upon the respondents, and will

24

require a response.

25

Grow filed, with his petition, a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2).

26

“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed

27

counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is

28

necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th

1

Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam). The

2

court may, however, appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings “if the interests of

3

justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing § 2254

4

Cases; Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case.

5

It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of the Court separately file the petition for writ

6

of habeas corpus and the motion for appointment of counsel, each of which is currently

7

attached to the in forma pauperis application at ECF No. 1.

8
9
10
11

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court add Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney
General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court electronically serve upon
respondents a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and a copy of this order.

12

It is further ordered that respondents will have sixty (60) days from the date on

13

which the petition is served upon them to appear in this action, and to answer or otherwise

14

respond to the petition. If respondents file an answer, petitioner will have sixty (60) days

15

to file a reply to the answer. If respondents file a motion to dismiss, petitioner will have

16

sixty (60) days to file a response to the motion to dismiss, and then respondents will have

17

thirty (30) days to file a reply to petitioner’s response.

18

It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

19
20

DATED THIS 4th day of December 2017.

21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2