# Brown v. Royal > District Court, D. Nevada · July 1, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11089722 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, D. Nevada - **Decided:** July 1, 2025 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11089722 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 Case No. 3:25-cv-00052-MMD-CLB 6 DEION BROWN, ORDER 7 Petitioner, v. 8 TERRY ROYAL, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Petitioner Deion Brown, a pro se Nevada prisoner, commenced this habeas action 13 by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1-1.) This habeas matter is before 14 the Court for initial review under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 as well as 15 consideration of Brown’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4) and Motion to 16 Extend Time (ECF No. 8). 17 II. BACKGROUND 18 Under Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and 19 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See 20 Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to 21 screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably 22 incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 23 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) 24 (collecting cases). 25 Brown challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth Judicial 26 27 1All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 28 1 District Court for Clark County. On June 15, 2023, the state court entered a judgment of 2 conviction for attempted lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen. The state court 3 sentenced Brown to a term of eight to twenty years. The Nevada Court of Appeals 4 affirmed the conviction. 5 On June 28, 2023, Brown filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus. The 6 Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief. On January 24, 2025, Brown mailed 7 or handed to a correctional officer for the purpose of filing his federal petition for writ of 8 habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1-1.) The Court denied Brown’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 9 application and instructed him to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 6.) Brown timely complied. 10 Accordingly, the Court denies his motion to extend time to pay the filing fee as moot. (ECF 11 No. 8.) 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 Turning to Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4), there is no 14 constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Luna 15 v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 16 336-37 (2007)). However, an indigent petitioner may request appointed counsel to pursue 17 such relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is generally 18 discretionary. Id. (authorizing appointment of counsel “when the interests of justice so 19 require”). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such 20 that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process and where the petitioner 21 is so uneducated that he or she is incapable of fairly presenting his or her claims. See La 22 Mere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 23 61 (9th Cir. 1980). 24 The Court finds that appointment of counsel in this case is in the interests of justice. 25 Brown is serving a relatively lengthy sentence. His petition indicates that he has suffered 26 from mental health issues. In addition, his petition may raise relatively complex issues, 27 2The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Nevada 28 appellate courts. The docket records may be accessed by the public online 1 and it is unclear whether he will be able to adequately articulate his claims in proper 2 person with the resources available to him. Therefore, Brown’s motion for appointment of 3 counsel is granted. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 It is therefore ordered that Brown’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4) 6 is granted. 7 It is further ordered that Brown’s Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 8) is denied as 8 moot. 9 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file the Petition for Writ 10 of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket. 11 It is further ordered that the Federal Public Defender is provisionally appointed as 12 counsel and will have 30 days to undertake direct representation of Brown or to indicate 13 the office’s inability to represent Brown in these proceedings. If the Federal Public 14 Defender is unable to represent Brown, the Court will appoint alternate counsel. The 15 counsel appointed will represent Brown in all federal proceedings related to this matter, 16 including any appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw. A deadline 17 for the filing of an amended petition and/or seeking other relief will be set after counsel 18 has entered an appearance. The Court anticipates a deadline of approximately 90 days 19 from entry of the formal order of appointment. 20 It is further ordered that any deadline established and/or any extension thereof will 21 not signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period established. 22 Brown at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal limitation 23 period and timely presenting claims. That is, by setting a deadline to amend the petition 24 and/or by granting any extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or representation 25 that the petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained therein are not 26 subject to dismissal as untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013). 27 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is directed to add Nevada Attorney 28 General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for Respondents and to provide Respondents an 1 || electronic copy of all items previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of 2 || Electronic Filing to the Office of the Attorney General only. Respondents’ counsel must 3 || enter a notice of appearance within 21 days of entry of this order, but no further response 4 || will be required from Respondents until further order of the Court. 5 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is further directed to send a copy of this 6 || order to Brown, the Nevada Attorney General, the Federal Public Defender, and the CJA 7 || Coordinator for this division. 8 DATED THIS 1* Day of July 2025. 9 1 MIRANDAM.DU SS 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11089722. Public record. Not legal advice.