District Court, D. Nevada, 2024

Emanuel v. Cooke

Emanuel v. Cooke
District Court, D. Nevada · Decided June 27, 2024
Emanuel v. Cooke

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Troy Emanuel, Jr., Plaintiff, Case No. 3:23-cv-00564-MMD-CSD v. ORDER Cooke, et al., Defendants.

9 The Court has already determined that counsel should be appointed and has referred this case to the Pro Bono program. (ECF No. 35.) For the reasons stated below, however, the Court determines that it should instead appoint the Office of the Federal Public Defender. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for administrative modification of the Court’s prior order (ECF No. 40). This order therefore supersedes the prior order of appointment (ECF No. 39).

15 In district courts, the appointment of counsel for persons financially unable to obtain representation in criminal cases is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. “A person for whom counsel is appointed shall be represented at every stage of the proceedings from his initial appearance before the United States magistrate judge or the court through appeal, including ancillary matters appropriate to the proceedings.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). Ancillary matters include proceedings sufficiently related to the underlying criminal case. See United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). In evaluating the circumstances of this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff is represented by the Office of the Federal Public Defender in a separate suit for habeas corpus relief, Emanuel Jr. v. Neven et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01368- GMN-EJY. Plaintiff’s habeas counsel’s case is ancillary to this proceeding as this matter arose from the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s incarceration at issue in the habeas litigation. Representation by habeas counsel is reasonably 1|| necessary to protect Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual 2|| punishment and to aid in meaningful preparation of Plaintiff's habeas litigation, and the Court therefore finds it appropriate, under the specific circumstances of this 4|| case, to appoint the Office of the Federal Public Defender to represent Plaintiff.

5 For these reasons, the Court APPOINTS the Office of the Federal Public 6| | Defender to represent Plaintiff in this matter. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s 7| | Office to add the Office of the Federal Public Defender to the service list in this 8|| matter, and further, to separately serve this order on the Office of the Federal 9|| Public Defender so representation may begin immediately.

10 DATED THIS 27* Day of June 2024.

MIRANDA M. DU 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.