Walsh v. Dzurenda

D. Nevada

Walsh v. Dzurenda

DecidedApril 17, 2020

Docket2:18-cv-01427

StatusUnknown

This text of Walsh v. Dzurenda (Walsh v. Dzurenda) 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

Walsh v. Dzurenda, (D. Nev. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 ROBERT WALSH, Case No. 2:18-cv-01427-GMN-CWH

10 Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 In June 2019, this court granted in part respondents’ motion to dismiss several 15 grounds in Robert Walsh’s pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition (ECF No. 16 25). Walsh has now filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 30). 17 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus 18 proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 19 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 20 discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 21 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 22 U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case 23 are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the 24 petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his 25 claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th 26 Cir.1970). Here, Walsh was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance, 27 adjudicated a habitual criminal, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of 1 parole. While his petition appears to present his claims in a reasonably clear manner, in 2 order to ensure due process, the court grants Walsh’s motion for counsel. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of 4 counsel (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender for the District of 6 Nevada (FPD) is appointed to represent petitioner. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk electronically serve the FPD a copy of 8 this order, together with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1). 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FPD has 30 days from the date of entry of 10 this order to file a notice of appearance or to indicate to the court its inability to 11 represent petitioner in these proceedings. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after counsel has appeared for petitioner in this 13 case, the court will issue a scheduling order, which will, among other things, set a 14 deadline for the filing of an amended petition, if any. 15 DATED: 17 April 2020. 16

17 GLORIA M. NAVARRO 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 ROBERT WALSH, Case No. 2:18-cv-01427-GMN-CWH

10 Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 In June 2019, this court granted in part respondents’ motion to dismiss several 15 grounds in Robert Walsh’s pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition (ECF No. 16 25). Walsh has now filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 30). 17 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus 18 proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 19 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 20 discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 21 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 22 U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case 23 are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the 24 petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his 25 claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th 26 Cir.1970). Here, Walsh was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance, 27 adjudicated a habitual criminal, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of 1 parole. While his petition appears to present his claims in a reasonably clear manner, in 2 order to ensure due process, the court grants Walsh’s motion for counsel. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of 4 counsel (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender for the District of 6 Nevada (FPD) is appointed to represent petitioner. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk electronically serve the FPD a copy of 8 this order, together with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1). 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FPD has 30 days from the date of entry of 10 this order to file a notice of appearance or to indicate to the court its inability to 11 represent petitioner in these proceedings. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after counsel has appeared for petitioner in this 13 case, the court will issue a scheduling order, which will, among other things, set a 14 deadline for the filing of an amended petition, if any. 15 DATED: 17 April 2020. 16

17 GLORIA M. NAVARRO 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Walsh v. Dzurenda, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-dzurenda-nvd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack