United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
habeas matter filed by Steven Floyd Voss
(“Petitioner” or “Voss”) comes before
the Court for initial review on Voss' motions that he
submitted with the petition for appointment of counsel and
for leave to file a longer than normal petition (currently at
ECF Nos. 1-7, 1-8), and on his motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 5) filed thereafter. The filing fee has been paid.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
only order entered herein to date, the Court denied Voss'
pauper application and directed that he pay the $5.00 filing
fee. The order did nothing else. (ECF No. 3.)
shortly thereafter paid the filing fee, consistent with the
Court's prior finding that he had the ability to do so.
(ECF No. 4.)
motion for reconsideration, Voss urges that the Court did not
rule upon his counsel motion and “apparently overlooked
the fact that granting of informa [sic] pauper's [sic]
status would be essential to a determination by this Court to
appoint counsel to assist the now blind [see discussion
infra] Petitioner . . ..” (ECF No. 5 at 2.)
misunderstands the applicable procedure. The denial of the
pauper application-based on the pertinent finding that
Petitioner was able to pay the $5.00 filing fee-does not
preclude a later finding by the Court as to whether Voss is
financially eligible for the appointment of counsel pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. A finding that he can pay $5.00 is
not a finding that he can afford to retain an attorney.
motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 5) therefore will be
denied. Voss has not established a valid basis for
reconsidering the prior order denying the pauper application.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LONGER THAN NORMAL
Local Rule LSR 3-2(b), “there is no page limit with
respect to habeas corpus petitions . . ..” Voss'
motion for leave to file a longer than normal petition
(currently at ECF No. 1-8) therefore will be denied as
review of the financial materials submitted previously with
Voss' pauper application, the Court finds that Voss is
financially unable to retain adequate representation for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a).
Court further finds, on the current record, that appointment
of counsel is in the interests of justice given: (a)
Voss' sentencing to, inter alia, life without
the possibility of parole; and (b) the potential complexity
of issues pertaining to, inter alia, exhaustion,
successive petitions, and the federal limitation period
following upon a corrected or amended judgment of conviction
filed in state district court on or about May 24, 2018.
Court does not base appointment of counsel-on the current
record-on Voss' assertions in his motion for appointment
of counsel that such appointment “is necessary due to
his present disability of visual impairment, ” that he
has “severe progressive cataracts effecting [sic] both
of his eyes, ” that the cataracts “have rendered
him functionally blind, ” and that he thus ...