Lavoll v. Howell

D. Nevada

Lavoll v. Howell

DecidedMarch 31, 2023

Docket2:19-cv-01845

StatusUnknown

This text of Lavoll v. Howell (Lavoll v. Howell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lavoll v. Howell, (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 TERRANCE L. LAVOLL, Case No. 2:19-cv-01845-KJD-DJA

10 Petitioner, Order Denying Motion for Appointment v. of Counsel and Granting Motion for 11 Extension of Time to Respond to JERRY HOWELL, et al., Petition to May 26, 2023 12 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16) 13 14 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petitioner Terrance L. Lavoll has filed a motion 15 for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 13.) There is no constitutional right to appointed 16 counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th 17 Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). An indigent 18 petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue habeas relief. 18 U.S.C. 19 § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 20 discretionary. Id. § 3006A(a)(2) (authorizing appointment of counsel “when the interests 21 of justice so require”). However, counsel is appropriate if the complexities of the case 22 are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the 23 petitioner is so uneducated that he is incapable of fairly presenting his 24 claims. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 623 25 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, Lavoll challenges his sentence and claims that his 26 counsel was ineffective for misinforming him of the consequences of his guilty plea. The 27 petition presents Lavoll’s claims in a reasonably clear manner, and the legal issues do not appear to be particularly complex. Therefore, the court denies the motion. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of 2 counsel (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ first and second motions for 4 extension of time to respond to the petition (ECF Nos. 14, 16) are both GRANTED nunc 5 pro tunc. The deadline to respond to the petition is extended to May 26, 2023. 6

8 DATED: 31 March 2023. 9

10 KENT J. DAWSON 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 TERRANCE L. LAVOLL, Case No. 2:19-cv-01845-KJD-DJA

10 Petitioner, Order Denying Motion for Appointment v. of Counsel and Granting Motion for 11 Extension of Time to Respond to JERRY HOWELL, et al., Petition to May 26, 2023 12 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16) 13 14 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petitioner Terrance L. Lavoll has filed a motion 15 for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 13.) There is no constitutional right to appointed 16 counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th 17 Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). An indigent 18 petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue habeas relief. 18 U.S.C. 19 § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 20 discretionary. Id. § 3006A(a)(2) (authorizing appointment of counsel “when the interests 21 of justice so require”). However, counsel is appropriate if the complexities of the case 22 are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the 23 petitioner is so uneducated that he is incapable of fairly presenting his 24 claims. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 623 25 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, Lavoll challenges his sentence and claims that his 26 counsel was ineffective for misinforming him of the consequences of his guilty plea. The 27 petition presents Lavoll’s claims in a reasonably clear manner, and the legal issues do not appear to be particularly complex. Therefore, the court denies the motion. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of 2 counsel (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ first and second motions for 4 extension of time to respond to the petition (ECF Nos. 14, 16) are both GRANTED nunc 5 pro tunc. The deadline to respond to the petition is extended to May 26, 2023. 6

8 DATED: 31 March 2023. 9

10 KENT J. DAWSON 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lavoll v. Howell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lavoll-v-howell-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack