Johnson v. Ryan et al
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner's Motion to Request the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 8 ). (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 2/12/18. (LAD)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Darryl D Johnson,
No. CV-17-04473-PHX-GMS (ESW)
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
Petitioner Darryl D. Johnson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison
Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (Doc. 1). The Court ordered Respondents to file an answer (Doc. 5 at 3).
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Request the Appointment of
Counsel (Doc. 8) and Respondents’ Response (Doc. 10). Petitioner requests that the
Court appoint counsel for Petitioner because (i) Petitioner cannot afford to hire counsel,
(ii) Petitioner has a meritorious claim but is not legally trained, (iii) Petitioner has no
ability to conduct discovery or investigate the facts of his case, (iv) Petitioner’s helper
was transferred to another facility, and (v) Petitioner has no practical ability to find an
“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to
appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed
counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d
1191,1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when
“the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “In 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) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “Neither of these considerations is
dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
(9th Cir. 2009).
Having considered both elements, Petitioner has not shown that the interests of
justice require the appointment of counsel in this case. Petitioner has not demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in
litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Petitioner’s filings
with the Court, as well as the instant motion, indicate that Petitioner remains capable of
navigating his proceedings and presenting arguments to the Court. Petitioner is in a
position no different than many pro se prisoner litigants. Should the Court determine that
an evidentiary hearing in this matter is required or counsel is necessary for the effective
utilization of discovery procedures, counsel may be appointed. See Rules 6(a) and 8(c),
28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion to Request the Appointment of
Counsel (Doc. 8).
Dated this 12th day of February, 2018.
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?