Wolff v. Williams

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 DANIEL WOLFF, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00494-JAD-EJY

4 Petitioner

5 v. Order Provisionally Appointing Federal Public Defender 6 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., [ECF Nos. 6, 8] 7 Respondents

9 Pro se petitioner Daniel Wolff has filed an amended petition for habeas relief from his 10 2004 conviction one count of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and one count 11 of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon that.1 Wolff previously moved for court-appointed 12 counsel.2 I denied that motion because Wolff’s initial habeas corpus petition was too vague and 13 Wolff was attempting to incorporate by reference exhibits that he did not provide to the court. 14 Having reviewed the amended petition, I reconsider that denial. I find that Wolff has 15 demonstrated that counsel is appropriate, so I provisionally appoint the Federal Public Defender 16 to represent Wolff in this case. 17 Wolff also has filed a request for production of documents.3 This motion is moot 18 because I am appointing counsel to represent Wolff, and counsel will determine whether further 19 relief is necessary. 20 21 22 1 ECF No. 9. 23 2 ECF No. 6. 3 ECF No. 8. 1 Discussion 2 There are several reasons to grant Wolff’s request for counsel. Wolff currently is serving 3 two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for first-degree 4 murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and two consecutive sentences of 4–12 years, for 5 robbery with the use of a deadly weapon.4 According to a fragment of a transcript, the trial

6 lasted six weeks.5 The issues that he presents in the amended petition have some complexity, 7 and a trial that long likely will have other complex issues. These factors weigh in favor of 8 appointing counsel and Wolff is financially eligible for court-appointed counsel.6 9 Wolff has also filed a request for production of documents.7 Respondents oppose that 10 request.8 I deny that motion as moot because I am appointing counsel to represent petitioner, 11 and counsel will decide how to manage this action. 12 Conclusion 13 Upon reconsideration, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the denial of the motion for 14 appointment of counsel [ECF No. 4 at 4] is VACATED.

15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 6] is 16 GRANTED. The Federal Public Defender is appointed provisionally as counsel. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Production of Documents 18 [ECF No. 8] is DENIED without prejudice. 19 20

21 4 ECF No. 9 at 2. 5 Id. at 26. 22 6 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; ECF No. 4 at 4. 23 7 ECF No. 8. 8 ECF No. 10. 1 IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender has until July 3, 2020, to undertake representation of Wolff or (2) indicate to the court the office’s inability to represent Wolff. If the Federal Public Defender is unable to represent Wolff, then the court will appoint alternate counsel. The court will set a deadline for filing a second amended petition once counsel has appeared. The court does not signify any implied finding of tolling during any time 6]| period established or any extension granted. Wolff always remains responsible for calculating the limitation period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and timely presenting claims. The court makes 8]| no representation that the petition, any amendments to the petition, and any claims in the petition 9|| or amendments are not subject to dismissal as untimely.’ 10 Dated: June 3, 2020 11 Loe es U.S. District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013).