Garcia v. Stroud ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 KARISMA GARCIA, Case No. 3:17-cv-00711-MMD-WGC 7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 BRUCE STROUD, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner Karisma Garcia’s pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas 12 corpus is before the court on Garcia’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 17.) 13 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus 14 proceeding. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 15 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 16 discretionary. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 17 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 18 U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are 19 such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the 20 petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his 21 claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th 22 Cir.1970). Here, the petition presents the issues that Garcia wishes to raise in a 23 reasonably clear manner, and the legal issues are not complex. Therefore, counsel is not 24 justified. Garcia’s motion is denied. 25 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 26 17) is denied. 27 /// /// 1 It is further ordered that respondents’ motion for extension of time to file a response 2 to the petition (ECF No. 16) is granted nunc pro tunc. 3 DATED THIS 11th day of December 2019. 4 5 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27