Blaylock v. Oliver
This text of Blaylock v. Oliver (Blaylock v. Oliver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Jonathan Blaylock, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00782-JAD-NJK
4 Petitioner Order Screening and Serving Habeas Petition, and Granting Motion for 5 v. Appointment of Counsel
6 Ronald Oliver, et al., [ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2]
7 Respondents
8 Jonathan Blaylock is incarcerated at Nevada’s Southern Desert Correctional Center and 9 brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2019 10 state-court conviction.1 11 I. Appointment of counsel is warranted. 12 State prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel 13 unless the circumstances indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent a due process 14 violation.2 But the court may appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings if the interests of 15 justice so require.3 Blaylock’s petition indicates that he is serving a sentence of life in prison 16 with the possibility of parole after 152 months, and it appears he may not be able to adequately 17 litigate this action without counsel. I therefore find that appointing counsel for him is in the 18 interests of justice. So I grant Blaylock’s motion for appointment of counsel and appoint the 19 Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada (FPD) to represent him. 20
21 1 Blaylock has paid the filing fee. ECF No. 5. 2 Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 22 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam). 23 3 See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. 1 II. The court directs service of the petition. 2 I have examined Blaylock’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under Rule 4 of the Rules 3 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and I determine that it merits 4 service upon the respondents. So I order the petition served upon the respondents, and direct the
5 respondents to appear, but I do not require any further action on their part at this time. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 7 [ECF No. 1-2] is granted, and the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada (FPD) 8 is appointed to represent the petitioner. If the FPD is unable to represent the petitioner, 9 because of a conflict of interest or for any other reason, alternate counsel will be appointed. In 10 either case, counsel will represent the petitioner in all federal court proceedings relating to this 11 matter, unless allowed to withdraw. The FPD will have 30 days from the date of this order to 12 file a notice of appearance, or to indicate to the court its inability to represent the petitioner in 13 this case. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to:
15 • SEPARATELY FILE the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 16 1-1] and the Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 1-2]; 17 • ELECTRONICALLY SERVE upon the FPD a copy of this order and a 18 copy of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1-1]; and 19 • ADD Aaron Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for 20 Respondents and provide Respondents an electronic copy of all items 21 previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing 22 to the office of the Attorney General only. 23 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents will have 30 days from the date of this 2\| order to appear in this action, but they will not be required to respond to the habeas petition at this time.
5 U.S. District lige Jenni fer A. Dorsey □ June 27, 2025 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Blaylock v. Oliver, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blaylock-v-oliver-nvd-2025.