MARCOS RAMOS HERNANDEZ v. TERRY ROYAL, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00469
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MARCOS RAMOS HERNANDEZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-00469-MMD-CLB

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 TERRY ROYAL, et al., 9 Respondents. 10

11 Pro se Petitioner Marcos Ramos Hernandez, a Nevada state prisoner, 12 commenced this habeas action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF Nos. 1- 13 1, 1-2). This habeas matter is before the Court for initial review under the Rules Governing 14 Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rule”). 15 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition 16 and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 17 See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to 18 screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably 19 incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 20 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting 21 cases). 22 Hernandez challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth Judicial 23 District Court for Clark County. State of Nevada v. Hernandez, Case No. C-20-351079- 24 1.1 On October 4, 2021, the state court entered a judgment of conviction for two counts 25 attempt lewdness with a child under the age of 14. The state court sentenced Hernandez 26 27

28 1The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial District Court and Nevada appellate courts. The docket records may be accessed by the 2 appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on his untimely notice of appeal. 3 On June 15, 2022, Hernandez filed a state habeas petition. The Nevada Court of 4 Appeals affirmed the denial of relief. In September 2025, Hernandez initiated the instant 5 federal habeas matter (ECF No. 1-1.) The Court instructed him to resolve the filing fee, 6 and he timely complied. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) 7 In his petition, Hernandez requests the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 1-1 at 8 3.) There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus 9 proceeding. See Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. 10 Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336-37 (2007)). However, an indigent petitioner may request 11 appointed counsel to pursue that relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to 12 appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Id. (authorizing appointment of counsel “when 13 the interests of justice so require”). But counsel must be appointed if the complexities of 14 the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and 15 where the petitioner is so uneducated that he or she is incapable of fairly presenting his 16 or her claims. See La Mere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United 17 States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). 18 The Court finds that appointment of counsel in this case is in the interests of justice. 19 Hernandez is serving lengthy consecutive sentences, has limited education, and required 20 inmate assistance to draft his federal habeas petition. In addition, his petition may raise 21 relatively complex issues, and it is unclear whether he will be able to adequately articulate 22 his claims in proper person with the resources available to him. Therefore, Hernandez’s 23 request for appointment of counsel is granted. 24 It is therefore ordered that the Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed 25 as counsel and will have 30 days to undertake direct representation of Petitioner or to 26 indicate the office’s inability to represent Petitioner in these proceedings. If the Federal 27 Public Defender is unable to represent Petitioner, the Court will appoint alternate counsel. 28 The counsel appointed will represent Petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this 1 || matter, including any appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw. A 2 || deadline for the filing of an amended petition and/or seeking other relief will be set after 3 || counsel has entered an appearance. The Court anticipates a deadline of approximately 4 || 90 days from entry of the formal order of appointment. 5 It is further ordered that any deadline established and/or any extension thereof will 6 || not signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period established. 7 || Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal 8 || limitation period and timely presenting claims. That is, by setting a deadline to amend the 9 || petition and/or by granting any extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or 10 || representation that the petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained 11 || therein are not subject to dismissal as untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 12 || (9th Cir. 2013). 13 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will file the Petition for Writ of Habeas 14 || Corpus (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2). 15 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will add Nevada Attorney General Aaron 16 || D. Ford as counsel for Respondents and to provide Respondents an electronic copy of 17 || all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the 18 || office of the AG only. Respondents’ counsel must enter a notice of appearance within 21 19 || days of entry of this order, but no further response will be required from Respondents 20 || until further order of the Court. 21 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will send a copy of this order to the pro 22 || se Petitioner, the Nevada Attorney General, the Federal Public Defender, and the CJA 23 || Coordinator for this division. 24 DATED THIS 24" Day of November 2025.

26 MIRANDA M. DU 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28