Paul Mathew Revell v. Nethanjah Breitenbach, et al.

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 Paul Mathew Revell, Case No. 3:26-cv-00009-ART-CSD

6 Petitioner, ORDER v. 7 Nethanjah Breitenbach, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Paul Mathew Revell, a pro se Nevada prisoner, commenced this 11 action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-1). This habeas 12 matter is before the Court for initial review under the Rules Governing Section 13 2254 Cases,1 as well as consideration of Revell’s Motion for Appointment of 14 Counsel (ECF No. 1-2). 15 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas 16 petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not 17 entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). 18 This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, 19 vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. 20 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 21 Revell challenges a 2015 judgment of conviction for first-degree murder. 22 The state district court sentenced him to a term of 20 years to life in prison. The 23 Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. Revell filed a 24 state habeas petition. The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the state district 25 court’s denial of relief. Revell initiated this habeas action. ECF No. 1. Following 26

27 1 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 28 1 denial of his IFP application, Revell paid the filing fee. ECF No. 6. 2 Turning to Revell’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2) to 3 assist him in this habeas action, there is no constitutional right to appointed 4 counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 5 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336-37 (2007)). 6 However, an indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue that 7 relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 8 discretionary. Id. (authorizing appointment of counsel “when the interests of 9 justice so require”). But counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case 10 are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and 11 where the petitioner is so uneducated that he or she is incapable of fairly 12 presenting his or her claims. See La Mere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 13 1987); Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). 14 The Court finds that appointment of counsel in this case is in the interests 15 of justice, given, among other things, the complexity of Revell’s claims, his lengthy 16 sentence, that his petition may raise relatively complex issues, and it is unclear 17 whether he will be able to adequately articulate his claims in proper person with 18 the resources available to him. Therefore, Revell’s motion for appointment of 19 counsel is granted and the Court will provisionally appoint the Federal Public 20 Defender to represent him. 21 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED: 22 1. Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 1-2) is granted. 23 2. The Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed as counsel and 24 will have 30 days to undertake direct representation of Petitioner or to 25 indicate the office’s inability to represent Petitioner in these proceedings. 26 If the Federal Public Defender is unable to represent Petitioner, the 27 Court will appoint alternate counsel. The counsel appointed will 28 represent Petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this matter, 1 including any appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to 2 withdraw. A deadline for the filing of an amended petition and/or 3 seeking other relief will be set after counsel has entered an appearance. 4 The Court anticipates a deadline of approximately 60 days from entry of 5 the formal order of appointment. 6 3. Any deadline established and/or any extension thereof will not signify 7 any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period 8 established. Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating 9 the running of the federal limitation period and timely presenting 10 claims. That is, by setting a deadline to amend the petition and/or by 11 granting any extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or 12 representation that the petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any 13 claims contained therein are not subject to dismissal as untimely. See 14 Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013). 15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to add Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. 16 Ford as counsel for Respondents and to provide Respondents an 17 electronic copy of all items previously filed in this case by regenerating 18 the Notice of Electronic Filing to the office of the AG only. Respondents’ 19 counsel must enter a notice of appearance within 21 days of entry of 20 this order, but no further response will be required from Respondents 21 until further order of the Court. 22 5. The Clerk of Court is further directed to send a copy of this order to the 23 pro se Petitioner, the Nevada Attorney General, the Federal Public 24 Defender, and the CJA Coordinator for this division. 25 DATED THIS 2nd day of April, 2026.

27 ANNE R. TRAUM 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE