Muhammad-Coleman v. LaGrand ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 Darion Muhammad-Coleman, Case No. 3:23-cv-00012-ART-CLB 5 Petitioner, Order Denying Pro Se Motion for 6 v. Leave to File Amended Petition and Granting Extension to Respond to 7 LaGrand, et al., Motion to Dismiss 8 Respondents. (ECF No. 25) 9 10 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus Petitioner Darion Muhammad-Coleman, 11 who is represented by the Federal Public Defender (“FPD”), has filed a pro se 12 motion to amend the petition and withdraw counsel. (ECF No. 25.) The FPD filed 13 an amended petition raising seven grounds for relief. (ECF No. 19.) More than 14 three months later, Muhammad-Coleman filed the motion to amend. He asserts 15 that the FPD improperly omitted claims involving Double Jeopardy and that he 16 is actually innocent of first-degree murder. 17 Pursuant to this Court’s order, the FPD filed a response to Petitioner’s 18 motion in camera and under seal. (See ECF No. 40.) Counsel, mindful of her 19 duties of confidentiality and privilege to Petitioner, provided general information 20 about her representation. She described careful consideration of, and 21 investigation into, all potential claims, as well as discussions with Petitioner 22 about the claims she raised in the amended petition and the claims she did not 23 raise. Counsel states that although Petitioner does not agree with all of counsel’s 24 decisions, she does not believe an irreconcilable conflict exists. 25 The Court notes that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel 26 for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 27 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1993). And even in the 28 context of an appeal as of right, an indigent petitioner has no constitutional right 1 || that counsel raise even every nonfrivolous issue. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 2 || 751 (1983); see also Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000). In fact, the role of 3 || advocate requires that counsel evaluate claims and issues and select the 4 || strongest claims to press, in order that they not be lost among weaker, if 5 || colorable, claims. Jones, 463 U.S. at 751. This Court is also mindful of the goals 6 || of the efficient and just resolution of Petitioner’s federal habeas matter. The Court 7 || is unpersuaded that the FPD should withdraw from this case. Thus, Petitioner’s 8 || motion to amend/withdraw counsel is denied. 9 Petitioner, through counsel, also asks the Court for an extension of time to 10 || oppose Respondents’ motion to dismiss his first amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 11 || habeas corpus petition, pending the resolution of Petitioner’s motion to strike. 12 || (ECF No. 42.) Good cause appearing, the motion is granted. 13 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion to amend/motion to 14 || withdraw counsel (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. 15 It is further ordered that Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file an 16 || opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 17 || The Court will set a deadline to file the opposition after the resolution of the 18 || motion to strike. 19 20 Dated this 25th day of November, 2024. 21 22 Ara plod iden 23 ANNE R. TRAUM 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28