MARCUS SHARIF McNEAL v. Brian E. Williams; Attorney General for the State of Nevada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCUS SHARIF McNEAL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 22-15178
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01618-JAD-EJY
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Marcus Sharif McNeal appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion to dismiss counsel and proceed pro se in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
corpus proceedings. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see LaGrand v. Stewart,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15178
133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998), we affirm.
McNeal contends that the district court should have relieved counsel because
his disagreement with counsel’s decisions as to which claims to raise in his § 2254
petition created a conflict of interest. We are not persuaded. As the district court
explained, it is counsel’s responsibility to exercise her professional judgment to
determine which claims have the greatest chance of success. See Jones v. Barnes,
463 U.S. 745, 751-52 (1983) (counsel is vested with the authority to determine
which are the strongest issues to raise and which should be “winnow[ed] out”).
Moreover, McNeal does not have a constitutional right to represent himself in
these § 2254 proceedings, and we agree with the district court that the interests of
justice are best served by having counsel represent him this complex matter.1 See
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 4th Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152, 163-
64 (2000).
AFFIRMED.
1 To the extent McNeal seeks to argue that the district court erred in its April 6,
2021, order denying his motion to appoint substitute counsel, we do not consider
those arguments because McNeal did not file a notice of appeal from that order.

-- 2 of 2 --