Hill v. The State of Nevada

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 BRANDON JOVAN HILL, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01221-GMN-MDC

9 Petitioner Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel 10 v. (ECF No. 23) 11 THE STATE OF NEVADA,

12 Respondent.

13 In his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Brandon Jovan 14 Hill challenges his conviction for several counts, including first-degree murder, alleging 15 that his trial counsel was ineffective. (ECF No. 9.) The Court granted Respondents 16 Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the basis that the single claim was conclusory with no 17 factual allegations to support it.1 (ECF No. 21.) The Court dismissed the Petition without 18 prejudice and with leave to amend. (Id.) 19 Hill has now filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file an amended petition as 20 well as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.) There is no 21 constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Luna 22 v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 23

1 Hill did not file an opposition or otherwise respond to the Motion to Dismiss. 1 336–37 (2007)). An indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue habeas 2 relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 3 discretionary. Id. § 3006A(a)(2) (authorizing appointment of counsel “when the interests 4 of justice so require”). However, counsel is appropriate if the complexities of the case

5 are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the 6 petitioner is so uneducated that he is incapable of fairly presenting his 7 claims. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 8 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, Hill is serving a sentence of 20 years to life for 9 murder, robbery, and grand larceny. (Exh. 125.)2 The Court dismissed his Petition with 10 leave to amend because the single claim—that Hill’s trial counsel was ineffective for 11 conceding his guilt during closing arguments without Hill’s consent—was conclusory 12 and devoid of any factual allegations to support it. (ECF No. 9 at 15.) The Court notes 13 that the state courts rejected this claim after an evidentiary hearing. (Exhs. 223, 224, 14 229, 245.) The Court concludes that counsel is not warranted here. However, the

15 Court will grant Hill’s motion for an extension to amend and give Hill a final opportunity 16 to file an amended petition that sets forth specific but concise facts in support of his 17 ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. 18 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s Motion for Counsel (ECF No. 23) is 19 DENIED. 20 It is further ordered that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an 21 Amended Petition (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED. Petitioner has 45 days from the date 22 23 2 Exhibits referenced in this order are exhibits to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, and are found at ECF Nos. 12-16, 18. this Order is entered within which to file an Amended Petition as described in this Order. 2|| lf Petitioner files an Amended Petition, the Court will then issue a Scheduling Order for response. If Petitioner does not file an Amended Petition the Court will dismiss this habeas action without prejudice and without further prior notice. 5 6 DATED: 3 June 2025. Vf, GLORIA|M. NAVARRO 8 UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23