Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moncada v. Perry, 3:19-cv-00231-MMD-CBC. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20191105d23 Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , Chief District Judge . On June 24, 2019, the Court reviewed Petitioner Jonathan Moncada's 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition and directed the Clerk to file and serve the petition. (ECF No. 3.) The Court also denied his motion for appointment of counsel. ( Id. ) On September 20, 2019, Respondents filed a motion for clarification (ECF No. 7). Respondents inform the Court that Moncada entered into a global plea agreement on two cases (which Respondents refer to as C
More

ORDER

On June 24, 2019, the Court reviewed Petitioner Jonathan Moncada's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition and directed the Clerk to file and serve the petition. (ECF No. 3.) The Court also denied his motion for appointment of counsel. (Id.)

On September 20, 2019, Respondents filed a motion for clarification (ECF No. 7). Respondents inform the Court that Moncada entered into a global plea agreement on two cases (which Respondents refer to as Case A and Case B).1 The cases at times proceeded on similar tracks in state court, but at times diverged. Case A and Case B were docketed as separate cases on appeal, but Moncada later filed one state postconviction petition for both cases. Respondents seek clarification as to whether they should address both cases in one responsive pleading.

After Respondents filed their motion, Moncada filed a motion for reconsideration of this court's denial of his motion for counsel. (ECF No. 14.) As the Court explained previously, the decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. See 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, there may be complexities in this case that warrant appointment of counsel in order to ensure due process. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1970). Notably, Respondents filed a notice of their non-opposition to reconsideration of the denial of counsel. (ECF No. 15.) In light of these two motions, the Court grants the motion to reconsider its order denying the motion for appointment of counsel.

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is granted. This Court's order dated June 24, 2019 is vacated.

It is further ordered that Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 5) 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. 4). The FPD will have 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 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.

It is further ordered that Respondents' motion for clarification (ECF No. 7) is denied without prejudice as moot.

It is further ordered that Respondents' motion for leave to file presentence report under seal (ECF No. 11) is granted.

FootNotes


1. Exhibits 1-125 from the state-court record, found at ECF Nos. 8-10, are attached to the motion for clarification.
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