Colon v. Baker et al

Filing 9

ORDER - Petitioner's request for extension of time to submit payment (ECF No. 6 ) is granted. Petitioner's IFP application (ECF No. 8 ) is denied as moot. Clerk shall file the petition. Petitioner's motion for co unsel (ECF No. 2 ) is granted FPD is provisionally appointed to represent Petitioner. FPD shall undertake direct representation of Petitioner by 5/22/2019, or indicate inability to do so. If representation undertaken then amended petiti on is due by 6/21/2019. Clerk add AG as counsel for Respondents. Clerk of Court electronically serve both the AG and the FPD a copy of the petition and a copy of this order. (E-service 4/22/2019.) Respondents' counsel must enter a notice of appearance by 5/12/2019. Paper copies of any electronically filed exhibits need NOT be provided to chambers or to the staff attorney, unless later directed by the Court. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/22/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 MARC ANTHONY COLON, Case No. 3:18-cv-00490-MMD-CBC Petitioner, 7 ORDER v. 8 R. BAKER, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2), a request for 12 extension of time to submit payment (ECF No. 6), and an application to proceed in forma 13 pauperis (ECF No. 8). Petitioner has also paid the filing fee (ECF No. 7), which makes the 14 application moot. Nonetheless, Petitioner cannot afford counsel, and the issues presented 15 in his case warrant the appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 16 17 18 19 20 21 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s request for extension of time to submit payment (ECF No. 6) is granted. It is further ordered that Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is denied as moot.s It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 22 It is further ordered that that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF 23 No. 2) is granted. The Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed to represent 24 Petitioner. 25 It is further ordered that the Federal Public Defender must, within 30 days from the 26 date that this order is entered, undertake direct representation of Petitioner, or indicate to 27 the Court his inability to represent Petitioner in these proceedings. If the Federal Public 28 Defender does undertake representation of Petitioner, he will then have 60 days to file an 1 amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, if desired. If the Federal Public Defender is 2 unable to represent Petitioner, then the Court will appoint alternate counsel. 3 It is further ordered that neither the foregoing deadline nor any extension thereof 4 signifies or will signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period 5 established. Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the 6 federal limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and timely asserting claims. 7 8 It is further ordered that the clerk add Aaron Ford, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, as counsel for Respondents. 9 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court electronically serve both the Attorney 10 General of the State of Nevada and the Federal Public Defender a copy of the petition and 11 a copy of this order. 12 It is further ordered that Respondents’ counsel must enter a notice of appearance 13 within 20 days of entry of this order, but no further response will be required from 14 Respondents until further order of the court. 15 It is further ordered that, notwithstanding Local Rule LR IC 2-2(g), paper copies of 16 any electronically filed exhibits need not be provided to chambers or to the staff attorney, 17 unless later directed by the Court. 18 DATED THIS 22nd day of April 2019. 19 20 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?