Keller v. Garrett, 3:22-cv-00481

Keller was convicted in Nevada state court (Case No. C-16-312717-1) after a jury trial of multiple drug- and firearm-related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 20 years to life.
Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal; remittitur issued November 9, 2018.
Keller filed a state post-conviction habeas petition (filed Aug. 26, 2019); the state court denied relief April 11, 2022, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed on Sept. 9, 2022 (remittitur Oct. 4, 2022).
Keller filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on or about Oct. 31, 2022; he submitted IFP materials but also paid the filing fee, so the IFP application was denied as moot.
The district court performed initial screening under the Habeas Rules, concluded the petition did not plainly fail on its face, ordered service/response, and provisionally appointed the Federal Public Defender (FPD) to represent Keller.
The court directed the clerk to add the Nevada Attorney General as counsel for respondents; respondents must appear within 21 days. The FPD has 30 days to accept representation or decline; the court anticipates setting an amended-petition deadline ~90 days after formal appointment and cautioned that setting deadlines does not imply tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition survives initial screening under Habeas Rule 4	Keller presents federal habeas claims warranting a response	No response yet filed; respondents may later argue procedural defenses	Court found the petition does not plainly fail and ordered service/response
Whether Keller may proceed in forma pauperis	Keller submitted financial materials seeking IFP	Keller paid the filing fee	IFP application denied as moot
Whether counsel should be appointed for federal habeas proceedings	Keller requested appointed counsel given sentence length and claim complexity	No constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas; appointment discretionary	Court granted appointment in interests of justice and provisionally appointed the FPD
Procedural case management (service, appearances, deadlines, tolling)	Keller seeks representation and opportunity to amend	Respondents must be served and may assert defenses; tolling not automatically applied	Clerk to serve petition and add AG; respondents to appear in 21 days; FPD has 30 days to accept; anticipated ~90-day amendment deadline; court warns that deadlines do not imply statutory tolling

Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687 (9th Cir. 2019) (standards for initial habeas screening under Rule 4)
Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 1998) (frivolous, vague, or conclusory habeas petitions may be dismissed on screening)
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (screening and dismissal standards for habeas petitions)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in collateral postconviction proceedings)
Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing lack of constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas)
Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (context on counsel in postconviction proceedings)
LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1987) (counsel must be appointed when complexity or petitioner's limitations make fair presentation impossible)
Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54 (9th Cir. 1980) (appointment of counsel standards where denial would impair due process)
Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting deadlines does not itself establish equitable tolling)