United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 comes before the Court for consideration of
petitioner's application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 1-5), motion for leave to add additional
grounds (ECF No. 1-3), and motion to extend his copywork
limit (ECF No. 1-4), and for initial review pursuant to Rule
4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts.
review of petitioner's pauper application, the Court
finds that petitioner cannot pay the filing fee. The
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
will therefore be granted, and petitioner will not be
required to pay the $5 filing fee.
to petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel, there
is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal
habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley,
481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d
425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is
generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d
1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S.
1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984).
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 of fairly presenting his
claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also
Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970).
petition in this case is sufficiently clear in presenting the
issues that petitioner wishes to raise, and the issues are
not complex. Therefore, the Court concludes that counsel is
not justified in this case, and the motion for appointment of
counsel will be denied.
review of the petition, the Court will direct service and a
petitioner's motion for leave to add additional grounds,
it is unclear what relief petitioner seeks. The motion asks
for leave to include grounds up to and including ground 9 in
the petition “to avoid procedural barrment.” (ECF
No. 1-3 at 1-2.) The petition contains nine grounds.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to add additional grounds
will be denied as moot. To the extent petitioner is seeking a
ruling from the Court that his grounds will not be dismissed
as procedurally defaulted, the motion is denied. Whether any
of petitioner's claims are unexhausted and/or
procedurally defaulted is an issue that may be raised by
respondents in a motion to dismiss. The Court will address
any such contentions at that time.
petitioner has filed a motion to extend his copywork limit.
Petitioner asserts that he has reached his $100 copywork
limit and therefore needs a court order extending it.
Petitioner's request is based on speculation as to what
type of pleadings he may need to file in this action. At this
time there is nothing for petitioner to file as the Court is
directing a response from respondents and, under the habeas
rules, the relevant state court record will be furnished by
respondents. Accordingly, the Court will deny
petitioner's speculative and overbroad motion without
prejudice, to renew when there is a specific basis for doing
therefore ordered that petitioner's application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted.
Petitioner will not be required to pay the filing fee.
further ordered that petitioner's motion for appointment
of counsel (ECF No. 1-5) is denied.
further ordered that petitioner's motion for leave to add
additional grounds (ECF No. 1-3) is denied as moot.
further ordered that petitioner's motion to extend prison
copywork limit (ECF No. 1-4) is denied without prejudice.
further ordered that the Clerk of the Court file the petition
(ECF No. 1-1).
further ordered that the Clerk file the motions for
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-5), motion for leave to add
additional grounds (ECF No. 1-3), and motion to extend
copywork limit (ECF No. 1-4) and ...