Venegas v. Williams

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Casimiro Venegas, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00298-JAD-BNW

4 Petitioner Order Denying Application to Proceed In 5 v. Forma Pauperis and Motion for Appointment of Counsel 6 Warden Williams, et al., [ECF Nos. 9, 10] 7 Respondents

8 9 In his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, Casimiro Venegas 10 challenges his Clark County, Nevada convictions on 13 counts including attempted murder, 11 robbery, and battery with use of a deadly weapon,1 all stemming from the robbery of a 7-Eleven 12 store in Las Vegas and, shortly after, the robbery and beating of a man in his home.2 The state 13 district court sentenced Venegas to 22–55 years.3 14 Though Venegas applies to proceed in forma pauperis, he paid the filing fee, so I deny 15 his application as moot.4 He also moves for the court to appointment him a free attorney to 16 handle his case.5 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas 17 corpus proceeding.6 An indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue that relief.7 18

1 ECF No. 7; Eighth Judicial District Court Case No. C-16-313118-1. 19 2 See, e.g., ECF No. 11 at 1-2. 20 3 ECF No. 7 at 2. 21 4 ECF No. 9; see also ECF No. 3. 5 ECF No. 10. 22 6 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)). 23

7 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 1|| The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary.* However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable All of fairly presenting his claims.’ I find that while Venegas is serving a lengthy sentence, he sets forth his claims clearly and they do not appear to be particularly complex. So I deny the motion 6|| for counsel. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as moot. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10) is DENIED. 11 The court notes that the respondents have moved to dismiss Venegas’s habeas claims as 12|| duplicative, conclusory, and not cognizable in federal habeas. ECF No. 11. IT IS FURTHER 13] ORDERED that petitioner must file his response (if any) to that motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14] 11) by September 15, 2023.

US. District Judge Jennifér A. Dorse 16 August 1, 2023 17 18 19 20 21 ———___ 8 7d. (authorizing appointed counsel when “the interests of justice so require”). LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980).