Quinn v. Bean

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00582
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 TRELLIS QUINN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00582-RFB-EJY

8 Petitioner, ORDER

9 v.

10 JEREMY BEAN, et al.,

11 Respondents.

12 13 Trellis Quinn submitted a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition and has now 14 paid the filing fee. The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition under Rule 4 of 15 the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and directs that it be 16 served on respondents. 17 A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which 18 petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever 19 barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(b) (successive 20 petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his petition, he should notify the 21 Court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the 22 claim. 23 Quinn has also submitted a motion for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional 24 right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 25 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). An indigent 26 petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue habeas relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 27 The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Id. § 3006A(a)(2) (authorizing 28 appointment of counsel “when the interests of justice so require”). However, counsel is 1 appropriate if the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a 2 denial of due process, and where the petitioner is so uneducated that he is incapable of fairly 3 presenting his claims. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United 4 States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, Quinn sets forth his claims that his trial counsel was 5 ineffective and that the State presented insufficient evidence in a clear manner, and the legal 6 issues do not appear to be particularly complex. Therefore, the Court denies the motion. 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court detach, file, and electronically 8 SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) on respondents. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk add Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney 10 General, as counsel for respondents and provide respondents an electronic copy of all items 11 previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the office of the 12 AG only. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk detach and file petitioner’s motion for 14 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2). 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for counsel is DENIED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents file a response to the petition, including 17 potentially by motion to dismiss, within 90 days of service of the petition, with any requests for 18 relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the 19 local rules. Any response filed is to comply with the remaining provisions below, which are 20 entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 5. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this 22 case be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, the court does 23 not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in seriatum fashion in multiple 24 successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. Procedural defenses omitted from 25 such motion to dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. Respondents should not file a 26 response in this case that consolidates their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on 27 the merits, except pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly 28 lacking merit. If respondents do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) 1 | they will do so within the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they will specifically direct their argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in 3 Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9" Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses, 4) including exhaustion, should be included with the merits in an answer. All procedural defenses, 5 | including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents 7 | specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state court record 8 | materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner has 45 days from service of the answer, 10 | motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition, with any other requests for 11 | relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under 12 the local rules. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed herein 14 | by either petitioner or respondents be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the 15 | exhibits by number. The parties will identify filed CM/ECEF attachments by the number or 16 | numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, at this time, the parties send courtesy copies of any 18 | responsive pleading or motion and all INDICES OF EXHIBITS ONLY to the Reno Division 19 | of this court. Courtesy copies shall be mailed to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, 20 | NV, 89501, and directed to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the outside of the mailing 21} address label. No further courtesy copies are required unless and until requested by the 22 court.

24 DATED: May 5, 2025 2 CID 26 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, I 07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

-3-