Muhammad-Coleman v. LaGrand et al

Filing 45

ORDER - It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's motion to amend/motion to withdraw counsel ECF No. 25 is DENIED. It is further ordered that Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss ECF No. 42 is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. The Court will set a deadline to file the opposition after the resolution of the motion to strike. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 11/25/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4
5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Darion Muhammad-Coleman,

6

v.

7

LaGrand, et al.,

8

Case No. 3:23-cv-00012-ART-CLB

Petitioner,

Order Denying Pro Se Motion for
Leave to File Amended Petition and
Granting Extension to Respond to
Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 25)

Respondents.

9
10

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus Petitioner Darion Muhammad-Coleman,

11

who is represented by the Federal Public Defender (“FPD”), has filed a pro se

12

motion to amend the petition and withdraw counsel. (ECF No. 25.) The FPD filed

13

an amended petition raising seven grounds for relief. (ECF No. 19.) More than

14

three months later, Muhammad-Coleman filed the motion to amend. He asserts

15

that the FPD improperly omitted claims involving Double Jeopardy and that he

16

is actually innocent of first-degree murder.

17

Pursuant to this Court’s order, the FPD filed a response to Petitioner’s

18

motion in camera and under seal. (See ECF No. 40.) Counsel, mindful of her

19

duties of confidentiality and privilege to Petitioner, provided general information

20

about her representation. She described careful consideration of, and

21

investigation into, all potential claims, as well as discussions with Petitioner

22

about the claims she raised in the amended petition and the claims she did not

23

raise. Counsel states that although Petitioner does not agree with all of counsel’s

24

decisions, she does not believe an irreconcilable conflict exists.

25

The Court notes that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel

26

for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555

27

(1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). And even in the

28

context of an appeal as of right, an indigent petitioner has no constitutional right

1

1

that counsel raise even every nonfrivolous issue. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745,

2

751 (1983); see also Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000). In fact, the role of

3

advocate requires that counsel evaluate claims and issues and select the

4

strongest claims to press, in order that they not be lost among weaker, if

5

colorable, claims. Jones, 463 U.S. at 751. This Court is also mindful of the goals

6

of the efficient and just resolution of Petitioner’s federal habeas matter. The Court

7

is unpersuaded that the FPD should withdraw from this case. Thus, Petitioner’s

8

motion to amend/withdraw counsel is denied.

9

Petitioner, through counsel, also asks the Court for an extension of time to

10

oppose Respondents’ motion to dismiss his first amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254

11

habeas corpus petition, pending the resolution of Petitioner’s motion to strike.

12

(ECF No. 42.) Good cause appearing, the motion is granted.

13
14

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion to amend/motion to
withdraw counsel (ECF No. 25) is DENIED.

15

It is further ordered that Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file an

16

opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

17

The Court will set a deadline to file the opposition after the resolution of the

18

motion to strike.

19
20

Dated this 25th day of November, 2024.

21
22
23
24

ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2