Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dunckley v. State

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 26, 2014

BRENDAN DUNCKLEY, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Respondents.

ORDER

ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.

Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1) and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The application is moot because petitioner has paid the filing fee (#4). The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The court will serve the petition upon respondents for a response.

Petitioner has submitted a motion for appointment of counsel. Whenever the court determines that the interests of justice so require, counsel may be appointed to any financially eligible person who is seeking habeas corpus relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). "[T]he district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Weygandt v. Look , 718 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1983). There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. McCleskey v. Zant , 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991). The factors to consider are not separate from the underlying claims, but are intrinsically enmeshed with them. Weygandt , 718 F.2d at 954. After reviewing the petition, the court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted.

Petitioner has submitted a motion to extend prison copywork limit. Petitioner does not have a right to free photocopying. Johnson v. Moore , 948 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1991). However, a court can order a prison to provide limited photocopying when it is necessary for an inmate to provide copies to the court and other parties.

The court is not convinced that even limited photocopying is necessary at this time. In addition to the indigent inmate photocopying allowance, Nevada prisons also make carbon paper available for copies. Administrative Regulation 722. Petitioner has not alleged how carbon paper is inadequate for any pleadings, motions, or responses which he might file and serve. Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, respondents need to provide with their answer appellate briefs and orders, as well as pertinent portions of the transcripts. If, after respondents file and serve their answer or other response with their supporting exhibits, it becomes necessary for petitioner to file and serve his own exhibits, the court will then entertain a motion for petitioner to exceed the prison's limit on indigent photocopy work.

Petitioner has submitted a motion for judicial action on petition (#7). This order makes the motion moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court file the motion for appointment of counsel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court file the motion to extend prison copywork limit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to extend prison copywork limit is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for judicial action on petition (#7) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall add Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall electronically serve upon respondents a copy of the petition and this order. In addition, the clerk shall return to petitioner a copy of the petition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the petition was served to answer or otherwise respond to the petition. If respondents file and serve an answer, then they shall comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and then petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any exhibits filed by the parties shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers (or letter or letters) of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded-for this case-to the staff attorneys in Las Vegas.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon respondents or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon the attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion or other document submitted for consideration by the court. Petitioner shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to the respondents or counsel for the respondents. The court may disregard any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the clerk, and any paper received by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the clerk that fails to include a certificate of service.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.