Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hill v. Baker, 3:14-cv-00680-RCJ-WGC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180425d95 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Before the court are several motions filed by petitioner Rickie L. Hill in his pro se habeas matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss certain grounds in the petition, for the most part based on failure to exhaust (ECF No. 15). Hill sought an extension of time to file an opposition, which this court granted (ECF No. 24). Instead, Hill has filed six other motions. Hill mainly seeks the appointment of counsel. T
More

ORDER

Before the court are several motions filed by petitioner Rickie L. Hill in his pro se habeas matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss certain grounds in the petition, for the most part based on failure to exhaust (ECF No. 15). Hill sought an extension of time to file an opposition, which this court granted (ECF No. 24).

Instead, Hill has filed six other motions. Hill mainly seeks the appointment of counsel. This court has denied two previous motions for appointment of counsel on the basis that Hill's petition appears to clearly set forth the issues he wishes to raise (see ECF No. 10). Hill now states that he is being housed in the infirmary in Ely State Prison and that he has only been given some of his legal work since he was moved. He also indicates that he is pursuing this issue through the ESP grievance process. This court is not unsympathetic to the difficulties of pro se inmate litigation; however, the court remains unpersuaded that counsel is warranted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the following motions filed by petitioner: motion for recusal of district judge (ECF No. 25); motion to compel (ECF No. 26); motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 27); motion for enlargement of time to collect legal work (ECF No. 30); and motion to compel USD clerk (ECF No. 34) are all DENIED as set forth in this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to file supplement to motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 36) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall file and serve his opposition to the motion to dismiss, if any, within forty-five (45) days of the date this order is entered.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer