Stewart v. Johnson

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedApril 6, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-01757
StatusUnknown

This text of Stewart v. Johnson (Stewart v. Johnson) 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.

Bluebook
Stewart v. Johnson, (D. Nev. 2023).

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 CHRISTOPHER STEWART, Case No. 2:22-cv-01757-RFB-BNW

10 Petitioner, Order Directing Service of Petition and v. Granting Motion for Appointment of 11 Counsel CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., 12 (ECF No. 1-3) Respondents. 13

14 15 Christopher Stewart has submitted a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of 16 habeas corpus. He has now paid the filing fee. (See ECF No. 4.) The court has reviewed 17 the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and it will be docketed and served on 18 respondents. 19 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 §2254(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 Stewart has also submitted a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 1-3.) 27 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus 1 proceeding. Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 2 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). An indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to 3 pursue habeas relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is 4 generally discretionary. Id. § 3006A(a)(2) (authorizing appointment of counsel “when the 5 interests of justice so require”). However, counsel is appropriate if the complexities of the 6 7 case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where 8 the petitioner is so uneducated that he is incapable of fairly presenting his 9 claims. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 623 10 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, Stewart was tried and convicted of several counts 11 including robbery, kidnapping, and sexual assault stemming from the violent robbery of a 12 couple outside a Las Vegas convenience store. The court sentenced Stewart to an 13 aggregate term of 43 years to life. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2.) He alleges numerous grounds for 14 15 federal habeas relief, including ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely file a 16 direct appeal and a state postconviction habeas petition. In order to ensure due process, 17 the court grants Stewart’s motion and will appoint counsel. 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court detach, file, and 19 electronically serve the petition (ECF No. 1-2) on the respondents. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk add Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney 21 General, as counsel for respondents and provide respondents an electronic copy of all 22 23 items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the 24 office of the AG only. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk detach and file the motion for 26 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-3). 27 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada (FPD) is appointed to represent petitioner.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk electronically serve the FPD a copy of 7|| this order, together with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1-2.) 8|| The FPD has 30 days from the date of entry of this order to file a notice of appearance or 9]! to indicate to the court its inability to represent petitioner in these proceedings. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after counsel has appeared for petitioner in this " case, the court will issue a scheduling order, which will, among other things, set a deadline for the filing of an amended petition. 14 mony 45 DATED: 6 April 2023.

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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

Lawrence v. Florida
549 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Gary Lamere v. Henry Risley, Warden
827 F.2d 622 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Jacksonville Oil Mill
10 F.2d 54 (Sixth Circuit, 1926)
Benito Luna v. Scott Kernan
784 F.3d 640 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stewart v. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-johnson-nvd-2023.