McClain v. Williams, 2:17-cv-00753-RFB-NJK

Petitioner Clifford McClain filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and paid the filing fee; his IFP application was denied as moot.
The court previously issued an order to show cause about timeliness but vacated that order after McClain filed an amended petition that appears timely.
The court screened the amended petition under Habeas Rule 4 and directed the Clerk to serve it on respondents and add the Nevada Attorney General as counsel for respondents.
McClain moved for appointment of counsel; the court denied the motion, finding the legal issues not particularly complex and McClain’s petition sufficiently clear.
The court set procedural rules: respondents must consolidate all procedural defenses in a single motion to dismiss (not in the answer), may move to dismiss unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2) only in that motion, and must cite state-court decisions and record materials in any merits answer.
The court set deadlines and filing requirements: respondents have 90 days to respond; petitioner has 45 days to reply; parties must file and provide courtesy copies and index exhibits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of petition	McClain’s amended petition shows it is timely	Respondents had not yet argued timeliness	Court vacated prior show-cause order and accepted the amended petition for service
Appointment of counsel	McClain requested counsel for assistance in habeas proceeding	Respondents opposed appointment (implicitly) and court evaluated statutory/constitutional standards	Denied: no constitutional right; issues not complex; petitioner adequate to proceed pro se
Procedural defenses—how to present	McClain implicitly seeks merits resolution	Respondents might raise multiple procedural defenses piecemeal or in the answer	Court required all procedural defenses be raised together in a single motion to dismiss; failure may waive defenses
Handling of unexhausted claims	McClain expects merits adjudication	Respondents may seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2)	Such dismissal must be in the single motion to dismiss and address the Cassett standard; procedural defenses not to be combined with merits in answer
Use of state-court record in merits response	McClain expects factual/record reliance	Respondents will rely on state-court records and decisions	Court ordered respondents to specifically cite and address applicable state-court written decisions and record materials in any merits answer

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (recognizes no constitutional right to appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings)
Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425 (9th Cir.) (discusses appointment of counsel in federal habeas proceedings)
Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir.) (appointment of counsel in habeas is discretionary; required if complexity or petitioner cannot present claims)
Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir.) (discretionary appointment of counsel principles in habeas cases)
Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.) (counsel required where petitioner’s limited education prevents fair presentation of claims)
Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614 (9th Cir.) (standard for dismissal of unexhausted claims on the merits under § 2254(b)(2))