Brumfield v. Williams ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 KEITH DEON BRUMFIELD, Case No. 2:24-cv-00652-GMN-EJY 6 Petitioner, v. ORDER 7 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Pro se Petitioner Keith Deon Brumfield, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada 11 Department of Corrections, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1) under 28 12 U.S.C. § 2254. This habeas matter is before the Court for initial review under the Rules 13 Governing Section 2254 Cases1 as well as consideration of Brumfield’s Motion for Appointment 14 of Counsel (ECF No. 7). For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds the appointment of 15 counsel is in the interests of justice, and provisionally appoints the Federal Public Defender to 16 represent Brumfield in this case. 17 Background 18 Brumfield challenges a conviction imposed by the Eighth Judicial District Court. State of 19 Nevada v. Bromfield2, Case No. C-19-337927-1.3 On July 11, 2019, the state court entered a 20 judgment of conviction for four counts of Battery Constituting Domestic Violence and sentenced 21 Brumfield to an aggregate term of 32 to 80 years under the Small Habitual Criminal Statutes. 22 1 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules 23 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 24 2 The Court notes that online docket records of the Eighth Judicial District Court and the state corrections department’s inmate locator page spell Petitioner’s last name as “Bromfield.” 25 Petitioner, however, has spelled his last name as “Brumfield.” 26 3 The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial District Court 27 and Nevada appellate courts. The docket records may be accessed by the public online at: https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/default.aspx and 28 at: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do. 1 On August 16, 2020, Brumfield filed a state habeas postconviction Petition where the 2 state court granted his state habeas Petition, in part, to the extent it entitled Brumfield to exercise 3 his right to a direct appeal. On February 14, 2023, the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the 4 judgment of conviction. On March 26, 2024, Brumfield initiated this federal habeas case 5 alleging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 1-1. In his Petition, Brumfield 6 asserts that he did not appeal the denial of his state habeas Petition. Id. at 1. He further asserts 7 that all of the grounds stated in his federal habeas Petition have not been presented to the state 8 appellate court. Id. The Court instructed Brumfield to resolve the filing fee, and he filed a 9 Motion to Extend Time to pay the filing fee, which the Court grants nunc pro tunc. ECF Nos. 3, 10 5. He has paid the filing fee. ECF No. 6. 11 Discussion 12 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and 13 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez 14 v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss 15 petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by 16 procedural defects. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. 17 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). 18 Here, it appears likely that Brumfield’s federal habeas claims are at least partially 19 unexhausted in state court and may be subject to dismissal without prejudice. Although 20 Brumfield filed a direct appeal of his conviction, he did not present his ineffective assistance of 21 counsel claim to the state appellate court. 22 Turning to Brumfield’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, there is no constitutional 23 right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 24 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336-37 (2007)). However, 25 an indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue that relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 26 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Id. (authorizing 27 appointment of counsel “when the interests of justice so require”). But counsel must be 28 appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial 1 of due process, and where the petitioner is so uneducated that he or she is incapable of fairly 2 presenting his or her claims. See La Mere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. 3 United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). 4 The Court finds that appointment of counsel in this case is in the interests of justice. 5 Brumfield is serving lengthy consecutive sentences. In addition, his Petition may raise relatively 6 complex issues, including whether his ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be 7 dismissed as unexhausted in state court, and it is unclear whether he will be able to adequately 8 articulate his claims in proper person with the resources available to him. Therefore, 9 Brumfield’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is granted. 10 Conclusion 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 12 1. Petitioner Keith Deon Brumfield’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 7) 13 is granted. 14 2. Brumfield’s Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 5) is granted nunc pro tunc. 15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Brumfield’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 16 Corpus (ECF No. 1-1). 17 4. The Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed as counsel and will have 30 18 days to undertake direct representation of Petitioner or to indicate the office’s 19 inability to represent Petitioner in these proceedings. If the Federal Public Defender 20 is unable to represent Petitioner, the Court will appoint alternate counsel. The 21 counsel appointed will represent Petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this 22 matter, including any appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw. 23 A deadline for the filing of an amended petition and/or seeking other relief will be set 24 after counsel has entered an appearance. The Court anticipates a deadline of 25 approximately 90 days from entry of the formal order of appointment. 26 5. Any deadline established and/or any extension thereof will not signify any implied 27 finding of a basis for tolling during the time period established. Petitioner at all times 28 remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal limitation period and ] timely presenting claims. That is, by setting a deadline to amend the petition and/or 2 by granting any extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or representation that 3 the petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained therein are not 4 subject to dismissal as untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 5 2013). 6 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to add Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as 7 counsel for Respondents and to provide Respondents an electronic copy of all items 8 previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the 9 office of the AG only. Respondents’ counsel must enter a notice of appearance 10 within 21 days of entry of this order, but no further response will be required from 11 Respondents until further order of the Court. 12 7. The Clerk of Court is further directed to send a copy of this order to the pro se 13 Petitioner, the Nevada Attorney General, the Federal Public Defender, and the CJA 14 Coordinator for this division. 15 DATED: June 20, 2024 lh 18 ose STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28