Rodriguez-Carillo v. Garrett
This text of Rodriguez-Carillo v. Garrett (Rodriguez-Carillo v. Garrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7 * * *
8 RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ-CARILLO, Case No. 3:20-cv-00267-LRH-WGC
9 Petitioner, v. ORDER 10
11 WARDEN GARRETT, et al.,
12 Respondents.
13 14 On May 12, 2020, this court denied petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma 15 pauperis and directed him to pay the filing fee in order to proceed with his petition for 16 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 3. He has complied with 17 that order and paid the required fee. ECF No. 4. The court has reviewed the petition 18 pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and the petition shall be filed herein and served upon the 19 respondents. 20 A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which 21 petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be 22 forever barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. 23 §2244(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his 24 petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a 25 motion to amend his petition to add the claim. 26 In addition, petitioner included a motion for the appointment of counsel with his 27 petition. ECF No. 1-2. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3006A(a)(2)(B), the district court has 1 representation. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas 2 corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555(1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 3 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 4 discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Bashor v. Risley, 5 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the 6 complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due 7 process, and where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be 8 incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at1196; see also 9 Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970). The petition on file in this action is 10 sufficiently clear in presenting the claim that petitioner wishes to bring. Also, the issues 11 in this case are not particularly complex. It does not appear that appointment of counsel 12 is warranted in this instance. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel is 13 denied. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall FILE the petition for writ of 15 habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-1) and motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2) and 16 ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition and a copy of this order on the respondents. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Aaron D. Ford, Attorney 18 General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 60 days from the date 20 of entry of this order to appear in this action, and to answer or otherwise respond to the 21 petition. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if respondents file an answer, petitioner shall 23 have 60 days from the date on which the answer is served on him to file and serve a 24 reply. If respondents file a motion to dismiss, petitioner shall have 60 days from the 25 date on which the motion is served on him to file and serve a response to the motion to 26 dismiss, and respondents shall, thereafter, have 30 days to file a reply in support of the 27 motion. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed 2 || herein by either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits 3 || identifying the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall 4 || be identified by the number or numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard 5 || copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded — for this case — to 6 || the staff attorneys in Reno. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is 8 || DENIED. 9 DATED this 16th day of June, 2020. A / 5 - ; 10 LAR . HICKS 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rodriguez-Carillo v. Garrett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-carillo-v-garrett-nvd-2020.