Hudson v. Hutching

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01377
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 CLEMON HUDSON, Case No. 2:22-cv-01377-GMN-BNW

10 Petitioner, Order Directing Service of the Petition v. and Denying Petitioner’s Motion for 11 Appointment of Counsel WILLIAM HUTCHING, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Clemon Hudson submitted a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and has 15 now paid the filing fee. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 4.) The court has conducted a preliminary review 16 of the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 17 States District Courts and directs that it be served on respondents. 18 A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which 19 petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be 20 forever barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. 21 §2244(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his 22 petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a 23 motion to amend his petition to add the claim. 24 Hudson has also submitted a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 1-3.) 25 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus 26 proceeding. Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. 27 Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). An indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue habeas relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint 1 counsel is generally discretionary. Id. § 3006A(a)(2) (authorizing appointment of counsel 2 “when the interests of justice so require”). However, counsel is appropriate if the 3 complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due 4 process, and where the petitioner is so uneducated that he is incapable of fairly 5 presenting his claims. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. 6 United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, Hudson’s petition generally 7 presents his claims in a reasonably clear manner, and the legal issues do not appear to 8 be particularly complex. Therefore, the court denies the motion. 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court detach, file, and 10 electronically SERVE the petition (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2) on respondents. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk add Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney 12 General, as counsel for respondents and provide respondents an electronic copy of all 13 items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the 14 office of the AG only. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk detach and file petitioner’s motion for 16 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-3). 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for counsel is DENIED. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents file a response to the petition, 19 including potentially by motion to dismiss, within 90 days of service of the petition, with 20 any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the normal 21 briefing schedule under the local rules. Any response filed is to comply with the 22 remaining provisions below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 5. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents 24 in this case be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other 25 words, the court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either 26 in seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the 27 answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to 1 potential waiver. Respondents should not file a response in this case that consolidates 2 their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 3 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If 4 respondents do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they will 5 do so within the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they will specifically 6 direct their argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in 7 Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural 8 defenses, including exhaustion, should be included with the merits in an answer. All 9 procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents 11 specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state 12 court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner has 45 days from service of the 14 answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition, with any other 15 requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal 16 briefing schedule under the local rules. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed 18 herein by either petitioner or respondents be filed with a separate index of exhibits 19 identifying the exhibits by number. The parties will identify filed CM/ECF attachments by 20 the number or numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, at this time, the parties send courtesy copies of 2 any responsive pleading or motion and all INDICES OF EXHIBITS ONLY to the 3 Reno Division of this court. Courtesy copies shall be mailed to the Clerk of Court, 400 4 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, and directed to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the 5 outside of the mailing address label. No further courtesy copies are required unless 6 and until requested by the court. 7

8 DATED: 27 October 2022. 9

10 GLORIA M. NAVARRO 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27