WASHINGTON v. GENTRY

No. 2:17-cv-01589-JAD-NJK.

Larry James Washington, Petitioner, v. Jo Gentry, et al., Respondents

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Larry James Washington, Petitioner, Pro Se.


Order

[ECF Nos. 1, 2]

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

Pro se Nevada state prisoner Larry James Washington brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2013 kidnapping and battery convictions pursuant to a guilty plea. Washington filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) with his habeas corpus petition (ECF No. 1-1) and moves for court-appointed counsel (ECF No. 2).

I. Application to proceed in forma pauperis

Washington's application to proceed in forma pauperis shows that he is able to pay the $5 filing fee for this action. Therefore, the in forma pauperis application will be denied, and Washington will be granted time to pay the $5 filing fee. To pay the filing fee, Washington must have $5 sent to the Clerk of the Court, with a cover letter setting forth the case number of this action. If Washington believes that, since he filed his in forma pauperis application, he has become unable to pay the $5 filing fee, he may, alternatively, file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis. If Washington fails to pay the filing fee or file a new in forma pauperis application within the time allowed, this action will be dismissed.

II. Request for counsel

Washington also asks for court-appointed counsel to represent him in this action. There is no constitutional right to counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding.1 The district court has discretion to appoint counsel if the "interests of justice require representation," and the court must appoint counsel if the case is so complex that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process.2 The court has reviewed the petition prepared by Washington. It appears that he has the ability to communicate his issues, which are not so complex that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process. Accordingly, I do not find that the interests of justice require representation in this case, and I deny the motion to appoint counsel.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED. Petitioner has until August 14, 2017, to either pay the $5 filing fee for this action or file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, or this case will be dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to SEND to petitioner, along with a copy of this order, two form in forma pauperis applications.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner's motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.

FootNotes


1. Penn. v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987).
2. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987).

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases