Mathis v. Warden N.N.C.C.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 2, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00091
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 JASON T. MATHIS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00091-ART-CLB 5 Petitioner, ORDER 6 v.

7 WARDEN, N.N.C.C., et al.,

8 Respondents.

9 Pro se Petitioner Jason T. Mathis has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 10 Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 6 (“Petition”).) This matter comes before 11 the court on initial review under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 12 (“Habeas Rules”). For the reasons discussed below, the court directs service of 13 the Petition. 14 Mathis challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth 15 Judicial District Court for Clark County (“state court”). State of Nevada v. Jason 16 T. Mathis, Case No. 05C216498-1.1 On October 8, 2008, the state court entered 17 a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury trial, for two counts of first-degree 18 murder with the use of a deadly weapon and one count of conspiracy to commit 19 murder. In total, it appears that Mathis was sentenced to four terms of life 20 without the possibility of parole. Mathis appealed, and the Nevada Supreme 21 Court affirmed on June 30, 2011. Remittitur issued on July 25, 2011. 22 On February 3, 2012, Mathis filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus. 23 The state court denied post-conviction relief on July 9, 2019. Mathis filed a post- 24 conviction appeal, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial on 25 November 13, 2020. Remittitur issued on December 8, 2020. 26

1 The court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial District Court and Nevada appellate 27 courts. The docket records may be accessed by the public online at: https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/default.aspx and 28 http://caseinfonvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do. 1 On February 14, 2022, Mathis initiated this federal habeas corpus 2 proceeding by filing a motion for extension of time to file a petition for a writ of 3 habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1-1.) This Court instructed Mathis to resolve the filing 4 fee, denied his motion without prejudice as premature, and instructed Mathis to 5 file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 4.) Mathis complied by paying 6 the filing fee and filing a petition. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) 7 Habeas Rule 4 requires the assigned judge to examine the habeas petition 8 and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petition is not entitled 9 to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule 10 allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, 11 conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. Boyd v. 12 Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 13 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). Although it appears that Mathis’s 14 petition may have a statute of limitations issue,2 the Court finds that a response 15 is warranted in the instant case. 16 Further, it appears that counsel may be helpful in this case, given the 17 potential complexity of Mathis’s claims and his life sentences. The Criminal 18 Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), authorizes the court to appoint 19 counsel “when the interests of justice so require.” The CJA further provides that 20 a habeas petitioner must demonstrate financial eligibility in all circumstances 21 where the court appoints counsel. See id. § 3006A(a) (counsel “shall be provided 22 for any financially eligible person”) (emphasis added). 23 Although this Court finds that the appointment of counsel is in the 24 interests of justice, this Court is cognizant of the fact that Mathis has not moved 25 for the appointment of counsel. As such, this Court intends to provisionally 26 appoint the Federal Public Defender to represent Mathis in 30 days unless Mathis 27 2 Absent another basis for tolling or delayed accrual, the Court notes—but does not decide—that it appears that Mathis 28 filed his petition 343 days after the AEDPA limitation period expired. 1 || declares his desire that this Court not appoint counsel. Moreover, if Mathis 2 || desires that counsel be appointed, he must file a complete in forma pauperis 3 || (“IFP”) application to show that he cannot afford counsel to litigate this case. 4 It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of Court is instructed to add Nevada 5 || Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for Respondents and electronically 6 || serve the Nevada Attorney General with a copy of the petition (ECF No. 6) and 7 || this order. 8 It is further ordered that this Court will provisionally appoint the Federal 9 || Public Defender to represent Mathis in 30 days unless Mathis declares his desire 10 || that this Court not appoint counsel. 11 It is further ordered that prior to the appointment of counsel, if Mathis 12 || desires the appointment of counsel, Mathis must file an application for leave to 13 || proceed IFP, accompanied by a signed financial certificate and a statement of his 14 || inmate account. The clerk of the court is directed to send Mathis a blank 15 || application form for incarcerated litigants. 16 It is further ordered that this Court will set a briefing schedule following 17 || the appointment of counsel or the filing of Mathis’s declaration that counsel is 18 || not desired. 19 DATED THIS 2"4 day of August 2022. 20 21 j jon 22 Aras /

23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28