3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 PABLO RAMON GUERRERO, Case No. 3:26-cv-00154-MMD-CSD
7 Petitioner, SCREENING ORDER v. 8
9 DEBORAH BORGAS,
10 Respondent.
11 Pro se Petitioner Pablo Ramon Guerrero filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 12 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1-1 (“Petition”)), a motion for leave to proceed in forma 13 pauperis (ECF No. 1 (“IFP Motion”)), and a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 14 1-2 (“Motion for Counsel”)). Based on Guerrero’s Financial Certificate (ECF No. 4), the 15 Court finds that good cause exists to grant the IFP Motion. Following an initial review of 16 the Petition under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”), the Court 17 directs service of the Petition and grants the Motion for Counsel. 18 I. BACKGROUND1 19 Guerrero challenges his state court conviction in State of Nevada v. Pablo v. 20 Guerrero, 02C180840-2. A jury found Guerrero was found guilty of burglary, preventing 21 or dissuading a victim from reporting a crime, sexual assault, conspiracy to commit 22 burglary, two counts of burglary while in possession of a firearm, conspiracy to commit 23 kidnapping, first-degree kidnapping while using a deadly weapon, first-degree kidnapping 24 while using a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm, conspiracy to commit 25
26 1The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial 27 District Court and Nevada appellate courts found at https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/portal and 28 http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do. 1 murder, attempted murder while using a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily 2 harm, conspiracy to commit robbery with use of a deadly weapon, robbery with use a 3 deadly weapon, and grand larceny. The state court entered the judgment of conviction on 4 March 31, 2004, sentencing Guerrero to an aggregate of 30 years to life. Guerrero 5 appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and 6 remanded the matter to the state court. Pablo R. Guerrero v. State of Nevada, No. 43115. 7 Specifically, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed Guerrero’s conviction for conspiracy to 8 commit robbery because the state district court erroneously used the deadly-weapon 9 enhancement. The state court entered an amended judgment of conviction in compliance 10 with the Nevada Supreme Court’s order on August 15, 2005. 11 Guerrero filed a state habeas petition on June 6, 2006. The state court appointed 12 counsel, who filed a supplemental petition on April 12, 2007. After an evidentiary hearing, 13 the state court denied the petition on November 23, 2011. Guerrero appealed, and the 14 Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition on January 16, 2013. Pablo 15 Ramon Guerrero v. State of Nevada, No. 59697. Remittitur issued on February 12, 2013. 16 Guerrero filed a federal habeas petition on April 1, 2013, in case number 2:13-cv- 17 00328-JAD-DJA. The Court denied Guerrero federal habeas relief on April 9, 2020, and 18 Judgment was entered. 19 Guerrero filed second, third, and fourth state habeas petitions. Guerrero was 20 denied relief and appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the second 21 state habeas petition on June 15, 2017. Pablo Ramon Guerrero v. State of Nevada, No. 22 69678. The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the third state habeas petition 23 on March 14, 2019. Pablo Ramon Guerrero v. Jo Gentry, Warden, No. 75293-COA. And 24 the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the fourth state habeas petition on 25 March 12, 2020. Pablo Ramon Guerrero v. State of Nevada, No. 78247-COA. 26 27 2 1 On March 17, 2025, the state court entered a third-amended judgment of 2 conviction. (ECF No. 1-1 at 37–40.) That third-amended judgment of conviction stated the 3 following: “on the 17th day of March 2025, following communication received from the 4 Nevada Department of Corrections (NDC), COURT ORDERED, credit for time served to 5 reflect EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE (845) DAYS and Third Amended Judgment of 6 Conviction WILL ISSUE.” (Id. at 40.) 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 Habeas Rule 4 requires the assigned judge to examine a habeas petition and order 9 a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petition is not entitled to relief. See Valdez 10 v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and 11 dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, 12 or plagued by procedural defects. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 13 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). The 14 Court finds that service of the Petition on Respondents is warranted here.2 15 The Court now turns to Guerrero’s Motion for Counsel. There is no constitutional 16 right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Pennsylvania v. 17 Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) 18 (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). An indigent petitioner may still 19
20 2Although Guerrero’s Petition challenges the same convictions that he challenged in case number 2:13-cv-00328-JAD-DJA, a successive petition is not barred when the 21 petitioner challenges a new judgment. And here, it appears that Guerrero’s third-amended judgment of conviction amounts to a new, intervening judgment because “a court’s 22 recalculation and alteration of the number of time-served or other similar credits awarded 23 to a petitioner constitutes a new judgment.” Gonzalez v. Sherman, 873 F.3d 763, 769 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 332–33, 341–42 (2010) 24 (holding that “the phrase ‘second or successive’ must be interpreted with respect to the judgment challenged,” so “where . . . there is a ‘new judgment intervening between the 25 two habeas petitions,’ [the petition] challenging the resulting new judgment is not ‘second or successive’ at all”); Turner v. Baker, 912 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that, under 26 Nevada law, a state court’s amended judgment awarding a defendant credit for time 27 served constitutes a new judgment). 3 1 request appointed counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint 2 counsel is generally discretionary. See id. (authorizing appointed counsel when “the 3 interests of justice so require”). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities 4 of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and 5 where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly 6 presenting his claims. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 PABLO RAMON GUERRERO, Case No. 3:26-cv-00154-MMD-CSD
7 Petitioner, SCREENING ORDER v. 8
9 DEBORAH BORGAS,
10 Respondent.
11 Pro se Petitioner Pablo Ramon Guerrero filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 12 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1-1 (“Petition”)), a motion for leave to proceed in forma 13 pauperis (ECF No. 1 (“IFP Motion”)), and a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 14 1-2 (“Motion for Counsel”)). Based on Guerrero’s Financial Certificate (ECF No. 4), the 15 Court finds that good cause exists to grant the IFP Motion. Following an initial review of 16 the Petition under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”), the Court 17 directs service of the Petition and grants the Motion for Counsel. 18 I. BACKGROUND1 19 Guerrero challenges his state court conviction in State of Nevada v. Pablo v. 20 Guerrero, 02C180840-2. A jury found Guerrero was found guilty of burglary, preventing 21 or dissuading a victim from reporting a crime, sexual assault, conspiracy to commit 22 burglary, two counts of burglary while in possession of a firearm, conspiracy to commit 23 kidnapping, first-degree kidnapping while using a deadly weapon, first-degree kidnapping 24 while using a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm, conspiracy to commit 25
26 1The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial 27 District Court and Nevada appellate courts found at https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/portal and 28 http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do. 1 murder, attempted murder while using a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily 2 harm, conspiracy to commit robbery with use of a deadly weapon, robbery with use a 3 deadly weapon, and grand larceny. The state court entered the judgment of conviction on 4 March 31, 2004, sentencing Guerrero to an aggregate of 30 years to life. Guerrero 5 appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and 6 remanded the matter to the state court. Pablo R. Guerrero v. State of Nevada, No. 43115. 7 Specifically, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed Guerrero’s conviction for conspiracy to 8 commit robbery because the state district court erroneously used the deadly-weapon 9 enhancement. The state court entered an amended judgment of conviction in compliance 10 with the Nevada Supreme Court’s order on August 15, 2005. 11 Guerrero filed a state habeas petition on June 6, 2006. The state court appointed 12 counsel, who filed a supplemental petition on April 12, 2007. After an evidentiary hearing, 13 the state court denied the petition on November 23, 2011. Guerrero appealed, and the 14 Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition on January 16, 2013. Pablo 15 Ramon Guerrero v. State of Nevada, No. 59697. Remittitur issued on February 12, 2013. 16 Guerrero filed a federal habeas petition on April 1, 2013, in case number 2:13-cv- 17 00328-JAD-DJA. The Court denied Guerrero federal habeas relief on April 9, 2020, and 18 Judgment was entered. 19 Guerrero filed second, third, and fourth state habeas petitions. Guerrero was 20 denied relief and appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the second 21 state habeas petition on June 15, 2017. Pablo Ramon Guerrero v. State of Nevada, No. 22 69678. The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the third state habeas petition 23 on March 14, 2019. Pablo Ramon Guerrero v. Jo Gentry, Warden, No. 75293-COA. And 24 the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the fourth state habeas petition on 25 March 12, 2020. Pablo Ramon Guerrero v. State of Nevada, No. 78247-COA. 26 27 2 1 On March 17, 2025, the state court entered a third-amended judgment of 2 conviction. (ECF No. 1-1 at 37–40.) That third-amended judgment of conviction stated the 3 following: “on the 17th day of March 2025, following communication received from the 4 Nevada Department of Corrections (NDC), COURT ORDERED, credit for time served to 5 reflect EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE (845) DAYS and Third Amended Judgment of 6 Conviction WILL ISSUE.” (Id. at 40.) 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 Habeas Rule 4 requires the assigned judge to examine a habeas petition and order 9 a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petition is not entitled to relief. See Valdez 10 v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and 11 dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, 12 or plagued by procedural defects. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 13 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). The 14 Court finds that service of the Petition on Respondents is warranted here.2 15 The Court now turns to Guerrero’s Motion for Counsel. There is no constitutional 16 right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Pennsylvania v. 17 Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) 18 (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). An indigent petitioner may still 19
20 2Although Guerrero’s Petition challenges the same convictions that he challenged in case number 2:13-cv-00328-JAD-DJA, a successive petition is not barred when the 21 petitioner challenges a new judgment. And here, it appears that Guerrero’s third-amended judgment of conviction amounts to a new, intervening judgment because “a court’s 22 recalculation and alteration of the number of time-served or other similar credits awarded 23 to a petitioner constitutes a new judgment.” Gonzalez v. Sherman, 873 F.3d 763, 769 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 332–33, 341–42 (2010) 24 (holding that “the phrase ‘second or successive’ must be interpreted with respect to the judgment challenged,” so “where . . . there is a ‘new judgment intervening between the 25 two habeas petitions,’ [the petition] challenging the resulting new judgment is not ‘second or successive’ at all”); Turner v. Baker, 912 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that, under 26 Nevada law, a state court’s amended judgment awarding a defendant credit for time 27 served constitutes a new judgment). 3 1 request appointed counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint 2 counsel is generally discretionary. See id. (authorizing appointed counsel when “the 3 interests of justice so require”). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities 4 of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and 5 where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly 6 presenting his claims. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. 7 United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). 8 The Court finds that the appointment of counsel is in the interests of justice given 9 the procedural complexities of this case. The Court provisionally appoints the Federal 10 Public Defender (“FPD”) to represent Guerrero. 11 III. CONCLUSION 12 It is therefore ordered that the IFP Motion (ECF No. 1) is granted. 13 It is further ordered that the Motion for Counsel (ECF No. 1-2) is granted. 14 It is further kindly ordered that the Clerk of Court (1) file the Petition (ECF No. 1- 15 1), (2) add Aaron Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for 16 Respondents, (3) electronically provide Respondents’ counsel a copy of the Petition (ECF 17 No. 1-1), this Order, and all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notices 18 of Electronic Filing, (4) send the FPD a copy of this Order and the Petition (ECF No. 1-1), 19 and (5) send a copy of this Order to Guerrero and the CJA Coordinator for this division. 20 It is further ordered that Respondents’ counsel enter a notice of appearance within 21 14 days of entry of this Order. No further response will be required until further order. 22 It is further ordered that the FPD is provisionally appointed as counsel and will 23 have 30 days to (1) undertake direct representation of Guerrero by filing a notice of 24 appearance or (2) indicate the office’s inability to represent Guerrero in these 25 proceedings. If the FPD is unable to represent Guerrero, the Court will appoint alternate 26 counsel. Appointed counsel will represent Guerrero in all federal proceedings related to 27 4 1 || this matter, including any appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw. 2 || A deadline for the filing of an amended petition and/or seeking other relief will be set after 3 || counsel has entered an appearance. 4 It is further ordered that any deadline established and/or any extension thereof will 5 || not signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period established. 6 || Guerrero remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal limitation period 7 || and timely presenting claims. That is, by setting a deadline to amend the Petition and/or 8 || by granting any extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or representation that the 9 || Petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained therein are not subject to 10 || dismissal as untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013). 11 12 DATED THIS Day of March 2026.
14 MIRANDA M. DU 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28