Opinion

Brown v. Johnson

Court
District Court, D. Nevada
Filed
Nov 29, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.2%

The opinion

1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 ASA JAVON BROWN, Case No. 2:21-cv-01396-GMN-VCF

6 Petitioner,

v. ORDER

7

WILLIAM HUTCHINGS, et al.,

8

Respondents.

9

10 Petitioner Asa Javon Brown, a pro se Nevada prisoner, commenced this habeas action by

11 filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1). This habeas matter is before the Court

12 for initial review under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,1 as well as consideration of

13 Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 1-3). For the reasons discussed below,

14 the Court directs service of the petition and grants Petitioner’s motion.

15 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and order

16 a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v.

17 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss

18 petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by

19 procedural defects. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v.

20 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases).

21 Background

22 Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth Judicial District

23 Court for Clark County (“state court”). State of Nevada v. Asa Brown, Case No. C-16-319881.2

24

1 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing Section

25

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

26 2 The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial District Court and

Nevada appellate courts. The docket records may be accessed by the public online at:

27 https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/default.aspx and

28 at: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do.

1 On January 10, 2018, the state court entered a judgment of conviction for second degree murder

2 with use of a deadly weapon and sentenced Petitioner to life with the possibility of parole after 10

3 years and a consecutive enhancement of 60 months to 151 months for the use of a deadly weapon.

4 The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. In December 2019, Petitioner filed a state

5 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Asa Brown v. State of Nevada, Case No. A-19-807401-W. The

6 state court denied post-conviction relief. Petitioner filed a post-conviction appeal. The Nevada

7 Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief in April 2021, and a remittitur issued the following

8 month.

9 On July 26, 2021, Petitioner initiated this federal habeas corpus proceeding pro se. (ECF

10 No. 1.) The Court instructed him to resolve the filing fee, and he timely complied. (ECF Nos. 3,

11 4.) A receipt of payment of the filing fee was recorded on September 21, 2021 and another receipt

12 of payment of the filing fee was recorded on October 26, 2021. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.)

13 Discussion

14 I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

15 Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel to assist him in this habeas action. There is no

16 constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Luna v. Kernan,

17 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336–37 (2007)).

18 An indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue that relief. 18 U.S.C. §

19 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Id. (authorizing

20 appointed counsel “when the interests of justice so require”). Id. § 3006A(a)(2). However,

21 counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that a denial of counsel would

22 amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is so uneducated that he is incapable

23 of fairly presenting his claims. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v.

24 United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980).

25 Here, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is in the interests of justice. Brown’s

26 petition may raise relatively complex issues. Further, it is unclear whether he will be able to

27 adequately articulate his claims in proper person with the resources available to him. Therefore,

28 Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel is granted.

1 II. Filing Fee

2 A receipt of payment of the filing fee was recorded on September 21, 2021, which appears

3 to be from Brown’s family member. (ECF No. 4.) Another receipt of payment of the filing fee

4 was recorded on October 26, 2021 and appears to be from Brown. (ECF Nos. 5.) The Clerk of

5 Court is instructed to refund the October 26, 2021 payment of the $5 filing fee to Brown.

6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

7 1. Petitioner Asa Javon Brown’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 1-3) is

8 GRANTED.

9 2. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to refund the October 26, 2021 payment of the $5

10 filing fee to Brown.

11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the petition (ECF No. 1-1).

12 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to add Aaron Ford, Attorney General of the State of

13 Nevada, as counsel for Respondents and to provide Respondents an electronic copy of

14 all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to

15 the office of the AG only.

16 5. The Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed as counsel and will have 30

17 days to undertake direct representation of Petitioner or to indicate the office’s inability

18 to represent Petitioner in these proceedings. If the Federal Public Defender is unable

19 to represent Petitioner, the Court will appoint alternate counsel. The counsel appointed

20 will represent Petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this matter, including any

21 appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw. A deadline for the filing

22 of an amended petition and/or seeking other relief will be set after counsel has entered

23 an appearance. The Court anticipates a deadline of approximately 60 days from entry

24 of the formal order of appointment.

25 6. Any deadline established and/or any extension thereof will not signify any implied

26 finding of a basis for tolling during the time period established. Petitioner at all times

27 remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal limitation period and

28 timely presenting claims. That is, by setting a deadline to amend the petition and/or by

1 granting any extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or representation that the

2 petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained therein are not subject

3 to dismissal as untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013).

4 7. The Clerk of Court is further directed to send a copy of this order to the pro se

5 Petitioner, the Nevada Attorney General, the Federal Public Defender, and the CJA

6 Coordinator for this division.

7 DATED: November 29, 2021

8

________________________________

9

GLORIA M. NAVARRO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.