Quintana v. Johnson
2:22-cv-00437-APG-NJK
D. Nev.Mar 17, 2022Background:
- Petitioner Nestor Quintana filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and a motion for appointment of counsel, and paid the filing fee.
- The court screened the petition under Habeas Rule 4 and Rule 2(c) (petition pleading requirements).
- Quintana alleged constitutional violations of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments and ineffective assistance of counsel, but gave only vague, conclusory assertions and did not identify the convictions or the factual basis for the claims.
- The petition lacked factual allegations demonstrating how counsel’s performance was deficient or how constitutional rights were violated.
- The court declined to construct claims for Quintana or to appoint counsel based solely on common inmate limitations (limited education, resources), absent plausible constitutional claims.
- The court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim, denied the motion for appointed counsel, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of habeas pleading | Quintana contends his conviction/sentence violates 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments and counsel was ineffective | Petition fails Rule 2(c)/Rule 4: does not identify offenses or factual basis for constitutional or IAC claims | Petition dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Appointment of counsel | Requests counsel due to limited education, resources, and lack of assistance | Circumstances common to prisoners do not justify appointment without colorable claim | Motion to appoint counsel denied |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Implicit request to appeal adverse ruling | No substantial or debatable constitutional claim presented | COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 4 screening and summary dismissal standard)
- Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard for dismissing vague or conclusory habeas claims)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (petition must state facts showing real possibility of constitutional error)
- Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (2004) (court cannot give legal advice to pro se litigants)
- Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir. 1986) (appointment of counsel in habeas cases is discretionary and warranted when necessary to prevent due process violations)