Sampson v. Breitenbach

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 WILLIE SAMPSON, Case No. 3:20-cv-00615-MMD-WGC

7 Petitioner, ORDER

8 v.

9 PERRY RUSSELL, et al., 10 Respondents. 11 12 In this habeas corpus action, the Court appointed counsel—the Federal Public 13 Defender for the District of Nevada (FPD)—for Petitioner Willie Sampson, and counsel 14 appeared for Sampson on December 3, 2020. (ECF Nos. 3, 5.) On September 29, 2021, 15 Sampson filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 16.) Respondents 16 are due to respond to the amended petition by November 29, 2021. (ECF No. 6.) 17 On October 13, 2021, Sampson, acting pro se, filed a motion to dismiss counsel. 18 (ECF No. 19.) In that motion, he complains that his counsel have not sufficiently 19 investigated his case and have not sufficiently presented the evidence, and he requests 20 that his counsel be replaced. (Id. at 2.) On October 25, 2021, Sampson filed a document 21 that essentially restates and adds to his motion for discharge and substitution of his 22 appointed counsel. (ECF No. 21.) 23 On October 19, 2021, the Court ordered Sampson’s counsel to respond, under 24 seal, to his motion. (ECF No. 20.) On November 15, 2021, Sampson’s counsel filed a 25 response under seal as ordered. (ECF No. 22.) In that response, Sampson’s counsel 26 describes investigation that was done regarding claims Sampson wished to raise, and 27 counsel explains why certain claims were, or were not, included in the amended petition. 1 || (/d. at 2-5.) In view of that filing by Sampson’s counsel, the Court determines that 2 || replacement of Sampson’s counsel is not warranted in the interests of justice. See Marte! 3 || v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648, 652 (2012) (“interests of justice” standard applies to motions for 4 || substitution of counsel in both capital and noncapital habeas cases). The Court will deny 5 || Sampson’s motion to discharge and substitute his appointed counsel. The Court will sua 6 || sponte extend the time for Respondents to respond to Sampson’s amended petition. 7 It is therefore ordered that Sampson’s pro se motion to discharge and substitute 8 || counsel (ECF Nos. 19, 21) is denied. 9 It is further ordered that Respondents’ will have until January 14, 2022, to respond 10 || to Sampson’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 16.) 11 It is further ordered that Respondents’ Motion for Clarification and Request for New 12 || Scheduling Order (ECF No. 23) is denied as moot. 13 DATED THIS 224 Day of November 2021. 14 A Gh 15 16 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28