Kie v. Garrett, 3:20-cv-00709

Petitioner Donald Kie, Jr. filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court convictions (conspiracy to commit robbery, battery with intent to commit a crime, battery causing substantial bodily harm, and related offenses).
The petition asserted two grounds: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to request a Petrocelli hearing to exclude prior-uncharged-crime (res gestae) evidence and for prejudicial comments about alleged drug dealing; and (2) denial of due process by being prevented from viewing video evidence before trial.
The district court screened the petition under Rule 4 and found both grounds too vague: Kie failed to identify the uncharged act or how counsel’s conduct was deficient or prejudicial, and failed to specify what decisions or evidence would have differed had he seen the videos pretrial.
The court granted Kie leave to file an amended petition within 30 days to cure the pleading defects, warning that the deadline does not imply tolling of the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
The court denied Kie’s motion for appointment of counsel because the petition, as pleaded, did not warrant appointment and added the Nevada Attorney General as counsel for respondents; respondents must file a notice of appearance within 21 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to request a Petrocelli hearing to exclude prior-uncharged bad-acts evidence	Kie: counsel was ineffective for not seeking a Petrocelli hearing, allowing prejudicial res gestae evidence and prosecutorial comments about drug dealing	Respondents: Kie failed to identify the prior uncharged act or allege facts showing counsel’s deficiency or resulting prejudice	Court: Claim is too vague; pleading inadequate; must amend to allege the uncharged act and facts showing deficiency and prejudice
Denial of due process by being prevented from viewing video evidence pretrial	Kie: lack of opportunity to view trial videos deprived him of due process; would have made different decisions or offered exculpatory evidence	Respondents: Federal court only has petitioner’s allegations; Kie has not said what decisions or evidence would have changed or how he was harmed	Court: Claim is too vague; must amend to specify what videos, what decision or evidence would have changed, and how prejudice resulted
Motion for appointment of counsel	Kie: requested counsel to assist with habeas petition	Respondents: (Implicit) petition currently fails to state claims needing counsel	Court: Denied — appointment not warranted while petition is vague and deficient

McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (recognizing the right to effective assistance of counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Petrocelli v. State, 692 P.2d 503 (Nev. 1985) (Nevada pretrial hearing framework for admitting evidence of prior uncharged criminal conduct)