From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Summers v. McDaniels

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Feb 23, 2011
Case No. 3:09-CV-000674-LRH-RAM (D. Nev. Feb. 23, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 3:09-CV-000674-LRH-RAM.

February 23, 2011


ORDER


This is an action on a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, brought by Charles Summers appearing pro se. The matter has been fully litigated, with an answer and reply brief on file. Petitioner moves the court to "ask a question" (ECF No. 19) and for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 21). Both motions shall be denied.

In the motion to ask a question, petitioner asks why the Nevada Supreme Court reached a particular factual conclusion in its opinion affirming his conviction. This is a question that this Court cannot answer as it is outside the Court's knowledge and jurisdiction. The findings of the Nevada Supreme Court are just that. Such a query must be directed to the court making the finding.

As for the 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). The claims in this case are not especially complex. Moreover, petitioner has already presented his own defense to the motion to dismiss and a reply brief to the answer. The matter is ready for review on its merits and appointment of counsel at this juncture is unnecessary and would be pointless.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motions (ECF Nos. 19 and 21) are DENIED.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2011.


Summaries of

Summers v. McDaniels

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Feb 23, 2011
Case No. 3:09-CV-000674-LRH-RAM (D. Nev. Feb. 23, 2011)
Case details for

Summers v. McDaniels

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES ANTHONY SUMMERS, Petitioner, v. E.K. McDANIELS, et al, Respondents

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Feb 23, 2011

Citations

Case No. 3:09-CV-000674-LRH-RAM (D. Nev. Feb. 23, 2011)