Muhammad-Coleman v. LaGrand

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 25, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00012
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6 Darion Muhammad-Coleman, Case No. 3:23-cv-00012-ART-CLB

7 Petitioner, Order Denying Pro Se Motion to v. Withdraw and Replace Attorney 8 LaGrand, et al., (ECF No. 43) 9 Respondents. 10 11 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus Petitioner Darion Muhammad-Coleman, 12 who is represented by the Federal Public Defender (“FPD”), has filed a pro se 13 motion that he has styled as an emergency motion to withdraw and replace 14 attorney of record. (ECF No. 43.) He cites “extreme conflict of interest” with 15 absolutely no further explanation. This is insufficient. 16 The Court notes that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel 17 for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 18 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). And even in the 19 context of an appeal as of right, an indigent petitioner has no constitutional right 20 that counsel raise even every nonfrivolous issue. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 21 751 (1983); see also Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000). In fact, the role of 22 advocate requires that counsel evaluate claims and issues and select the 23 strongest claims to press, in order that they not be lost among weaker, if 24 colorable, claims. Jones, 463 U.S. at 751. This Court is also mindful of the goals 25 of the efficient and just resolution of Petitioner’s federal habeas matter. Petitioner 26 presents no basis whatsoever to support his contention that the FPD should 27 withdraw from this case. Thus, Petitioner’s motion to withdraw and replace 28 counsel is denied. 1 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion withdraw and replace 2 || counsel (ECF No. 43) is DENIED. 3 It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion for extension of time to 4 || respond to the motion to strike/motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 44) 5 || is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. The deadline is extended to March 17, 2025. 6 It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion for clarification (ECF No. 7 || 46) is DENIED as moot. 8 9 Dated this 25t day of February 2025. 10 1 Ana plod de 12 ANNE R. TRAUM 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28