Epps v. Oliver

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 22, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00204
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 JAMES EPPS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00204-GMN-VCF 8 Petitioner, 9 v. ORDER

10 DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT 11 OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

12 Respondents.

13 14 On February 16, 2022, this court denied petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 15 and directed him to pay the filing fee in order to proceed with his petition for writ of habeas 16 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 6. He has complied with that order and paid the 17 required fee. ECF No. 7. The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and the 18 petition shall be filed herein and served upon the respondents. 19 A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which 20 petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever 21 barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(b) (successive 22 petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his petition, he should notify the 23 court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the 24 claim. 25 In addition, petitioner has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 18 26 U.S.C. §3006A(a)(2)(B), the district court has discretion to appoint counsel when it determines 27 1 that the “interests of justice” require representation. There is no constitutional right to appointed 2 counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 3 555(1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel 4 is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Bashor v. 5 Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the 6 complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, 7 and where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly 8 presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 9 (8th Cir. 1970). The petition on file in this action is sufficiently clear in presenting the issues that 10 petitioner wishes to bring. Also, the issues in this case are not particularly complex. It does not 11 appear that appointment of counsel is warranted in this instance. Petitioner’s motion for the 12 appointment of counsel is denied. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall FILE the petition for writ of habeas 14 corpus (ECF No. 1-1). The Clerk shall also ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition and a 15 copy of this order on the respondents. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to add Aaron Ford, 17 Attorney General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for Respondents and to provide Respondents 18 an electronic copy of all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of 19 Electronic Filing to the office of the AG only. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 60 days from the date of entry 21 of this order to appear in this action, and to answer or otherwise respond to the petition. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if respondents file an answer, petitioner shall have 60 23 days from the date on which the answer is served on him to file and serve a reply. If respondents 24 file a motion to dismiss, petitioner shall have 60 days from the date on which the motion is 25 served on him to file and serve a response to the motion to dismiss, and respondents shall, 26 thereafter, have 30 days to file a reply in support of the motion. 27 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed herein 2 by either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the 3 exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the 4 number or numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court 5 record exhibits shall be forwarded – for this case – to the staff attorneys in Reno. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is 7 DENIED. 8 DATED: February 22, 2022

9 U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27