Brandy Stutzman v. William Reubart, et al.

Opinion

Brandy Stutzman, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00897-APG-BNW

Petitioner, Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for v. Appointment of Counsel and Denying as Moot Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss William Reubart, et al.,

Respondents. {ECF Nos. 11, 23, 24]

Petitioner, Brandy Stutzman, moves for appointment of counsel to represent her in this federal habeas proceeding. ECF No. 11. For reasons that follow, I will grant the motion. I will also deny respondents’ pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) as moot because I anticipate that, with counsel, Stutzman will likely file an amended petition. “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam). The court may, however, appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings “if the interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The complexity of the issues and the severity of the sentence are relevant factors in deciding whether the interests of justice warrant appointment of counsel. Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Here, Stutzman stands convicted of first-degree murder and is serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. ECF No. 6 at 2. It also appears likely that there will be relatively complex issues to be 1} addressed in this case that Stutzman may not be able to adequately litigate without counsel. 2\| Thus, I find that appointment of counsel is in the interests of justice. 3 I THEREFORE ORDER that Stutzman’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4111) is GRANTED. The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada (FPD) is appointed represent Stutzman. Ifthe FPD is unable to represent her, due to a conflict of interest or other reason, then alternate counsel will be appointed. In either case, counsel will represent Stutzman in all federal-court proceedings relating to this matter, unless allowed to withdraw. 8 I FURTHER ORDER that the Clerk shall ELECTRONICALLY SERVE upon the FPD copy of this order, together with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. I FURTHER ORDER that the FPD shall have until November 4, 2025, to file a notice of appearance, or to indicate to the court its inability to represent Stutzman in this case. I FURTHER ORDER the respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) is DENIED as 13}}moot. Thus, Stutzman’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the motion to 14|| dismiss (ECF No. 24) is also DENIED as moot. [| will establish a schedule for further 15] proceedings after counsel appears for Stutzman. Dated: October 14, 2025 ( Zo ANDREW P. GORDON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE