Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Forsberg v. Gittere, 3:19-cv-00037-MMD-CBC. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190228d41 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Petitioner Todd Forsberg has submitted a pro se 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. His application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and the Clerk will docket and serve it on Respondents. A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which Petitioner is aware. If Petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be fo
More

ORDER

Petitioner Todd Forsberg has submitted a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. His application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and the Clerk will docket and serve it on Respondents.

A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which Petitioner is aware. If Petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) (successive petitions). If Petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his petition, he should notify the Court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the claim.

Petitioner has also submitted a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2). 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 a 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). Here, Petitioner states that he is serving two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole, and it is unclear whether the legal issues he wishes to raise may be complex. Therefore, Petitioner's motion for counsel is granted.

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1-1) is granted.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court file and electronically serve the petition (ECF No. 1-1) on Respondents.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court add Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, as counsel for Respondents.

It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2).

It is further ordered that Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is granted.

It is further ordered that the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada ("FPD") is appointed to represent Petitioner.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court electronically serve the FPD a copy of this order, together with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-1). The FPD has 30 days from the date of entry of this order to file a notice of appearance or to indicate to the Court its inability to represent Petitioner in these proceedings.

It is further ordered that that after counsel has appeared for Petitioner in this case, the Court will issue a scheduling order, which will, among other things, set a deadline for the filing of an amended petition.

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