Kelsey v. Baker et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying ECF No. 22 Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Petitioner to file a reply to ECF No. 16 Answer to Habeas Petition by 12/20/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ZACHARY KELSEY,

10
11
12

Case No. 3:18-cv-00174-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

This case is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 2254, by Zachary Kelsey, a Nevada prisoner. On May 16, 2018, the Court screened

17

Kelsey’s Petition, ordered the Petition served on Respondents, and set a deadline for

18

Respondents’ response. (Order entered May 16, 2018 (ECF No. 5).) The Court also

19

denied a motion for appointment of counsel that Kelsey filed with his Petition. (Id.)

20

On June 18, 2018, Kelsey filed a second motion for appointment of counsel (ECF

21

No. 9), and the Court denied that motion on June 25, 2018. (See Order entered June 25,

22

2018 (ECF No. 10).)

23

Respondents filed an answer on September 4, 2018 (ECF No. 16). Kelsey is due

24

to file a reply to the answer by November 5, 2018. (See Order entered May 16, 2018

25

(ECF No. 5).)

26

On October 2, 2018, Kelsey filed a third motion for appointment of counsel (ECF

27

No. 22). “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to

28

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

1

counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191,

2

1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per

3

curiam)). The court may, however, appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings “if the

4

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

5

Governing § 2254 Cases; Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. It remains the Court’s view that

6

appointment of counsel is not warranted. The Court will deny the motion for appointment

7

of counsel.

8

However, in light of the representations made by Kelsey in his motion for

9

appointment of counsel, the Court will, sua sponte, extend by forty-five days, the time for

10
11
12
13
14
15

Kelsey to file his reply.
It is therefore ordered that the Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF
No. 22) is denied.
It is further ordered that the time for the Petitioner to file a reply to Respondents’
answer is extended to December 20, 2018.
DATED THIS 16th day of October 2018.

16
17
18

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2