Decarolis v. Williams

Full title: PATRICK PHILIP DECAROLIS, Petitioner, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Mar 8, 2017

Case No. 2:14-cv-01379-KJD-PAL (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 2:14-cv-01379-KJD-PAL

03-08-2017

PATRICK PHILIP DECAROLIS, Petitioner, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents.

KENT J. DAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

This habeas matter comes before the court on motions to extend time as well as petitioner Patrick Philip Decarolis's third motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 45).

As the court has explained previously, 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). The petition on file in this action appears sufficiently clear in presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to raise, and the legal issues do not appear to be overly complex. The court further notes that petitioner states that he seeks counsel in order that counsel procure a store surveillance videotape; however, there is no evidence that a security video exists (see exh. 118 to respondents' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21). Petitioner has also filed a motion for clarification, which appears to be a supplement to his motion for counsel and again seeks appointed counsel in order to locate surveillance video. Petitioner's third motion for counsel and the motion for clarification are both denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's third motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 45) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for clarification (ECF No. 47) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' first and second motions to extend time to file their answer to the petition (ECF Nos. 41 and 42) are both GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

DATED: 8 March 2017.

/s/_________

KENT J. DAWSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE