Espinoza v. Gittere

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 5, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00198
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

* * * 5

6 MARIO ESPINOZA, Case No. 3:21-cv-00198-MMD-CSD

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 WILLIAM “BILL” GITTERE, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus Petitioner Mario Espinoza has filed a motion for 12 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 18 (“Motion”).) There is no constitutional right to 13 appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 14 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The 15 decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 16 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 17 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel 18 must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would 19 amount to a denial of due process, and where the Petitioner is a person of such limited 20 education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 21 1196. 22 Here, Espinoza was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and kidnapping and 23 sentenced to two terms of life without the possibility of parole. Espinoza alleges that he 24 has a long history of mental illness and had a potentially viable insanity defense. In order 25 to ensure due process, the Court grants Espinoza’s Motion. In light of the appointment of 26 counsel, Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is denied without prejudice. 27 Respondents have also filed a motion for leave to file an exhibit under seal. (ECF 28 No. 26.) While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings and 1 documents, see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a party 2 seeking to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating 3 “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. 4 City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In 5 general, “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper 6 purposes. Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Here, Respondents ask to file 7 Espinoza’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) under seal because it is confidential 8 under state law and contains Espinoza’s identifiers and social security number. (ECF No. 9 26.) The Court has reviewed the PSI and concludes Respondents have demonstrated 10 compelling reasons to file the PSI under seal. 11 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner Mario Espinoza’s motion for appointment of 12 counsel (ECF No. 18) is granted. 13 It is further ordered that the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada 14 (“FPD”) is appointed to represent Espinoza. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically serve the FPD a copy of this order, 16 together with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 15). The FPD has 17 30 days from the date of entry of this order to file a notice of appearance or to indicate to 18 the Court its inability to represent Espinoza in these proceedings. 19 It is further ordered that after counsel has appeared for Espinoza in this case, the 20 Court will issue a scheduling order, which will, among other things, set a deadline for the 21 filing of an amended petition. 22 It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion for leave to file exhibit under seal 23 (ECF No. 26) is granted. 24 It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is denied 25 without prejudice. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion to extend time to respond (ECF No. 19) to the petition is granted nunc pro tunc. 3 DATED THIS 5" Day of April 2022.

6 MIRANDA le 8 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28