Flores-Delgado v. Lynch
ORDER that to the extent the motions for extension of time (Docs. 31 and 32 ) seek an extension of time to file objections, they are granted. Petitioner shall file his objections to the Report and Recommendation by 02/01/16. To the extent the motions seek appointment of counsel, they are denied. See order for details. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 1/6/16. (NKS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Loretta Lynch, et al.,
On June 5, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas in California.
Ultimately, on July 8, 2015, Petitioner’s Petition was transferred to Arizona.
December 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that Petitioner’s Petition be denied by this
Petitioner has filed two motions for extensions of time to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation. Embedded in both of those motions is a request for
appointment of counsel.
AThere is no constitutional right to counsel on habeas.@ Bonin v. Vasquez, 999
F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief
are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances indicate that appointed
counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.
1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970); Eskridge v.
Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965).
Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191,
The Court has discretion to appoint counsel when a magistrate or the district court
Adetermines that the interests of justice so require.@ Terronova v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d
1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B)). AIn deciding whether
to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood
of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d
952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
In this case, the Court finds Petitioner can and has articulated his claims well pro
se. Further, given that the Magistrate Judge has already recommended that Petitioner’s
Petition be denied, the Court does not find a high likelihood of success on the merits.
IT IS ORDERED that to the extent the motions for extension of time (Docs. 31
and 32) seek an extension of time to file objections, they are granted. Petitioner shall file
his objections to the Report and Recommendation by February 1, 2016. To the extent the
motions seek appointment of counsel, they are denied.
Dated this 6th day of January, 2016.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?