Casteel v. Gittere

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 SCOTT CASTEEL, Case No. 3:19-cv-00342-MMD-WGC

7 Petitioner, ORDER

8 v.

9 WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

10 Respondents.

11 12 In this habeas corpus action, on April 30, 2020, the Court granted Respondents’ 13 motion to dismiss, dismissed certain claims of Petitioner Scott Casteel, and set a schedule 14 for Respondents to file an Answer responding to his remaining claims. (ECF No. 38.) 15 Respondents’ Answer is due July 29, 2020—Casteel will then have 60 days to file a Reply, 16 responding to the Answer. (See ECF No. 38.) 17 On May 8, 2020, Casteel filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 39). 18 Casteel previously filed a motion for appointment for counsel (ECF No. 7), which the Court 19 denied (ECF No. 5). Casteel then filed a motion to reconsider, seeking reconsideration of 20 the denial of the motion (ECF No. 9), and the Court denied the motion to reconsider as 21 well (ECF No. 10). “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not 22 entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 23 appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 24 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) 25 (per curiam)). The Court may, however, appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings 26 “if the interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also Rule 8(c), Rules 27 Governing § 2254 Cases; Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. The Court remains of the view that 28 appointment of counsel is unwarranted in this case. 1 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2 || 39) is denied. 3 DATED THIS 15* day of May 2020.

5 4 _ MIRANDA M. DU 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28