Reyes-Rodriguez v. Royal

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00184
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 Case No. 3:25-cv-00184-MMD-CLB

6 NABOR REYES-RODRIGUEZ, ORDER

7 Petitioner, v. 8 TERRY ROYAL, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner Nabor Reyes-Rodriguez, a pro se Nevada prisoner, commenced this 12 habeas action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 5.) This 13 habeas matter is before the Court for initial review under the Rules Governing Section 14 2254 Cases.1 15 Under Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and 16 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See 17 Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen 18 and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, 19 false, or plagued by procedural defects. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th 20 Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). 21 Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth Judicial 22 District Court for Clark County. See State of Nevada v. Reyes-Rodriguez, Case No. C-19- 23 340666-1.2 On June 14, 2022, the state court entered a judgment of conviction for two 24 1All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the 25 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 26 2The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial 27 District Court and Nevada appellate courts. The docket records may be accessed by the public online at: https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/default.aspx and 28 at: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do. 1 counts of lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen. The state court sentenced 2 Reyes-Rodriguez to two terms of life with the possibility of parole after 10 years to run 3 concurrently. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Reyes-Rodriguez did 4 not file a state habeas petition. 5 On April 8, 2025, Petitioner mailed or handed to a correctional officer for the 6 purpose of filing his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1-1.) The Court 7 instructed him to resolve the filing fee, and he timely complied. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) Reyes- 8 Rodriguez has attached his opening brief on direct appeal as well as the state appellate 9 court’s order of affirmance. He asserts that he “selectively incorporates” the opening brief. 10 In addition, he asserts five separate grounds for relief that are primarily written in Spanish 11 by his cellmate who no longer lives with him. 12 In addition, Reyes-Rodriguez refers to a motion for appointment of counsel. He, 13 however, has not filed a motion for appointment of counsel in this matter. There is no 14 constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Luna 15 v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 16 336-37 (2007)). However, an indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue 17 such relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 18 discretionary. See id. (authorizing appointment of counsel “when the interests of justice so 19 require”). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such 20 that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process and where the petitioner 21 is so uneducated that he or she is incapable of fairly presenting his or her claims. See La 22 Mere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 23 61 (9th Cir. 1980). 24 The Court, nonetheless, finds that appointment of counsel in this case is in the 25 interests of justice. Reyes-Rodriguez is serving a lengthy sentence. In addition, his petition 26 may raise relatively complex issues, and it is unclear whether he will be able to adequately 27 articulate his claims in proper person considering his limited understanding of the English 28 language. Therefore, Reyes-Rodriguez’s request for the appointment of counsel is 1 granted. 2 It is further ordered that the Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed as 3 counsel and will have 30 days to undertake direct representation of Petitioner or to indicate 4 the Office’s inability to represent Petitioner in these proceedings. If the Federal Public 5 Defender is unable to represent Petitioner, the Court will appoint alternate counsel. The 6 counsel appointed will represent Petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this matter, 7 including any appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw. A deadline 8 for the filing of an amended petition and/or seeking other relief will be set after counsel 9 has entered an appearance. The Court anticipates a deadline of approximately 90 days 10 from entry of the formal order of appointment. 11 It is further ordered that any deadline established and/or any extension thereof will 12 not signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period established. 13 Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal 14 limitation period and timely presenting claims. That is, by setting a deadline to amend the 15 petition and/or by granting any extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or 16 representation that the petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained 17 therein are not subject to dismissal as untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 18 (9th Cir. 2013). 19 The Clerk of Court is directed to add Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as 20 counsel for Respondents and to provide Respondents with an electronic copy of all items 21 previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the Office of 22 the Attorney General only. Respondents’ counsel must enter a notice of appearance within 23 21 days of entry of this order, but no further response will be required from Respondents 24 until further order of the Court. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is further directed to send a copy of this order to the pro se 2 || Petitioner, the Nevada Attorney General, the Federal Public Defender, and the CJA 3 || Coordinator for this division. 4 DATED THIS 14" Day of May 2025.

6 MIRANDAM.DU 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28