Chappell v. Breitenbach

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 RANDY KYLE CHAPPELL, Case No. 3:25-cv-00060-ART-CSD 5 Petitioner, ORDER 6 v.

7 NETHANJAH BREITENBACH,

8 Respondents.

9 Pro se Petitioner Randy Kyle Chappell has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 10 Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, an application for leave to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (“IFP”), and a motion for counsel. (ECF No. 1-1 (“Petition”), 1, 1-2.) This 12 Court finds good cause exists to grant Chappell’s IFP application. As such, this 13 matter comes before this Court for initial review of the Petition under the Rules 14 Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) and for consideration of 15 Chappell’s motion. For the reasons discussed below, this Court directs service of 16 the Petition and grants Chappell’s motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND1 18 Chappell challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Third 19 Judicial District Court for Lyon County (“state court”). A jury found Chappell 20 guilty of two counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14. The state court 21 sentenced Chappell to an aggregate term of 20 years to life in prison. Chappell 22 appealed, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed on January 25, 2021. Randy 23 Kyle Chappell v. State of Nevada, No. 80540-COA. Remittitur issued on February 24 19, 2021. 25

26 1 This Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Nevada 27 appellate courts (http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do). Notably, the Third Judicial District Court for Lyon County does not have online 28 docket records. 1 On September 28, 2021, Chappell filed a state habeas petition. The state 2 court denied the petition. Chappell appealed, and the Nevada Court of Appeals 3 affirmed on September 19, 2024. Randy Kyle Chappell v. Tim Garrett, No. 86731- 4 COA. Chappell petitioned for rehearing. The Nevada Supreme Court denied 5 rehearing on November 19, 2024, and remittitur issued on December 10, 2024. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Habeas Rule 4 requires the assigned judge to examine the habeas petition 8 and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petition is not entitled 9 to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule 10 allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, 11 conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. Boyd v. 12 Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 13 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). This Court finds that a response is 14 warranted in the instant case. 15 This Court now turns to Chappell’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 16 (ECF No. 1-2.) There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal 17 habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); 18 Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 19 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). An indigent petitioner may request appointed 20 counsel to pursue that relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint 21 counsel is generally discretionary. Id. (authorizing appointed counsel when “the 22 interests of justice so require”). However, counsel must be appointed if the 23 complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial 24 of due process, and where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as 25 to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 26 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). 27 Following review of the Petition and the motion for appointment of counsel, 28 the Court will provisionally appoint the Federal Public Defender to represent 1 Chappell. The Court finds that appointment of counsel is in the interests of 2 justice given, among other things, Chappell’s life sentence and the complexities 3 of this case. 4 III. CONCLUSION 5 It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of Court (1) file the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 6 habeas petition (ECF No. 1-1), (2) add Aaron Ford, Attorney General of the State 7 of Nevada, as counsel for Respondents, (3) electronically serve Respondents’ 8 counsel a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1-1), (4) electronically provide 9 Respondents’ counsel a copy of this Order and copies of all items previously filed 10 in this case by regenerating the Notices of Electronic Filing, (5) serve the Federal 11 Public Defender a copy of this Order and the Petition (ECF No. 1-1), and (6) send 12 a copy of this order to Chappell and the CJA Coordinator for this division. 13 It is further ordered that Respondents’ counsel enter a notice of appearance 14 within 21 days of entry of this Order. No further response will be required until 15 further order. 16 It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 17 1-2) is granted. The Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed as counsel 18 and will have 30 days to (1) undertake direct representation of Chappell by filing 19 a notice of appearance or (2) indicate the office’s inability to represent Chappell 20 in these proceedings. If the Federal Public Defender is unable to represent 21 Chappell, the Court will appoint alternate counsel. Appointed counsel will 22 represent Chappell in all federal proceedings related to this matter, including any 23 appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw. A deadline for the 24 filing of an amended petition and/or seeking other relief will be set after counsel 25 has entered an appearance. The Court anticipates a deadline of approximately 26 90 days from entry of the formal order of appointment. 27 It is further ordered that any deadline established and/or any extension 28 thereof will not signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time 1 || period established. Chappell remains responsible for calculating the running of 2 || the federal limitation period and timely presenting claims. That is, by setting a 3 || deadline to amend the petition and/or by granting any extension thereof, this 4 || Court makes no finding or representation that the Petition, any amendments 5 || thereto, and/or any claims contained therein are not subject to dismissal as 6 || untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013). 7 DATED THIS 4th day of February 2025. 8 9 ee 10 Ans plored) 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28