Burton v. Najera

D. Nevada

Burton v. Najera

DecidedApril 17, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00753

StatusUnknown

This text of Burton v. Najera (Burton v. Najera) 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.

Bluebook

Burton v. Najera, (D. Nev. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Key Emarri Burton, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00753-APG-BNW

4 Petitioner Order Denying Motion for Counsel

5 v. [ECF No. 15]

6 Gabriela Najera, et al.,

7 Respondents

8 In his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition Key Emarri Burton challenges his Clark 9 County Nevada conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of attempted murder. ECF No. 6. Burton 10 has now filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 15.1 I find that counsel is not 11 warranted in this case, so I deny the motion. 12 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus 13 proceeding. Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 14 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). Whenever the court determines that the interests of justice so require, 15 counsel may be appointed to any financially eligible person who is seeking habeas corpus relief. 16 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “[T]he district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the 17 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 18 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 19 Here, Burton alleges in the petition’s two grounds that because his plea counsel rendered 20 ineffective assistance, he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter into the guilty 21 plea agreement. ECF No. 6. Burton presents his claims clearly and the legal issues do not appear 22 to be particularly complex. Therefore, I deny the motion for appointment of counsel. 23

1 The respondents opposed, and the petitioner replied. ECF Nos. 16, 18. 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that the petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied. 3 I FURTHER ORDER that the petitioner must file his opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9), if any, by May 17, 2024. The court is highly unlikely to grant any further extension 5] of time. 6 7 DATED this 17th day of April, 2024.

7 ANDREW P. GORDON 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Key Emarri Burton, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00753-APG-BNW

4 Petitioner Order Denying Motion for Counsel

5 v. [ECF No. 15]

6 Gabriela Najera, et al.,

7 Respondents

8 In his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition Key Emarri Burton challenges his Clark 9 County Nevada conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of attempted murder. ECF No. 6. Burton 10 has now filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 15.1 I find that counsel is not 11 warranted in this case, so I deny the motion. 12 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus 13 proceeding. Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 14 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). Whenever the court determines that the interests of justice so require, 15 counsel may be appointed to any financially eligible person who is seeking habeas corpus relief. 16 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “[T]he district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the 17 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 18 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 19 Here, Burton alleges in the petition’s two grounds that because his plea counsel rendered 20 ineffective assistance, he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter into the guilty 21 plea agreement. ECF No. 6. Burton presents his claims clearly and the legal issues do not appear 22 to be particularly complex. Therefore, I deny the motion for appointment of counsel. 23

1 The respondents opposed, and the petitioner replied. ECF Nos. 16, 18. 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that the petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied. 3 I FURTHER ORDER that the petitioner must file his opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9), if any, by May 17, 2024. The court is highly unlikely to grant any further extension 5] of time. 6 7 DATED this 17th day of April, 2024.

7 ANDREW P. GORDON 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Burton v. Najera, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-najera-nvd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack