Venegas v. Williams

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Casimiro Venegas, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00298-JAD-BNW 4 Petitioner Order Denying Application to Proceed In v. Forma Pauperis and Motion for Appointment of Counsel Warden Williams, et al., [ECF Nos. 9, 10] 7 Respondents 9 In his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, Casimiro Venegas challenges his Clark County, Nevada convictions on 13 counts including attempted murder, robbery, and battery with use of a deadly weapon,1 all stemming from the robbery of a 7-Eleven store in Las Vegas and, shortly after, the robbery and beating of a man in his home.2 The state district court sentenced Venegas to 22–55 years.3 14 Though Venegas applies to proceed in forma pauperis, he paid the filing fee, so I deny his application as moot.4 He also moves for the court to appointment him a free attorney to handle his case.5 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding.6 An indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue that relief.7 ECF No. 7; Eighth Judicial District Court Case No. C-16-313118-1.

2 See, e.g., ECF No. 11 at 1-2.

20 3 ECF No. 7 at 2.

4 ECF No. 9; see also ECF No. 3.

5 ECF No. 10.

6 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)).

7 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

1|| The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary.* 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 the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable All of fairly presenting his claims.’ I find that while Venegas is serving a lengthy sentence, he sets forth his claims clearly and they do not appear to be particularly complex. So I deny the motion 6|| for counsel.

7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as moot.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.

11 The court notes that the respondents have moved to dismiss Venegas’s habeas claims as 12|| duplicative, conclusory, and not cognizable in federal habeas. ECF No. 11. IT IS FURTHER 13] ORDERED that petitioner must file his response (if any) to that motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14] 11) by September 15, 2023.

US. District Judge Jennifér A. Dorse 16 August 1, 2023 ———___ 7d. (authorizing appointed counsel when “the interests of justice so require”).

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980).