Johnson v. Ryan et al

Filing 13

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)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Darryl D Johnson,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-04473-PHX-GMS (ESW)

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

Petitioner Darryl D. Johnson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

17

Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 2254 (Doc. 1). The Court ordered Respondents to file an answer (Doc. 5 at 3).

19

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Request the Appointment of

20

Counsel (Doc. 8) and Respondents’ Response (Doc. 10). Petitioner requests that the

21

Court appoint counsel for Petitioner because (i) Petitioner cannot afford to hire counsel,

22

(ii) Petitioner has a meritorious claim but is not legally trained, (iii) Petitioner has no

23

ability to conduct discovery or investigate the facts of his case, (iv) Petitioner’s helper

24

was transferred to another facility, and (v) Petitioner has no practical ability to find an

25

attorney.

26

“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to

27

appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed

28

counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d

1

1191,1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when

2

“the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “In deciding whether to

3

appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of

4

success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se

5

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,

6

954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “Neither of these considerations is

7

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970

8

(9th Cir. 2009).

9

Having considered both elements, Petitioner has not shown that the interests of

10

justice require the appointment of counsel in this case. Petitioner has not demonstrated a

11

likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in

12

litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Petitioner’s filings

13

with the Court, as well as the instant motion, indicate that Petitioner remains capable of

14

navigating his proceedings and presenting arguments to the Court. Petitioner is in a

15

position no different than many pro se prisoner litigants. Should the Court determine that

16

an evidentiary hearing in this matter is required or counsel is necessary for the effective

17

utilization of discovery procedures, counsel may be appointed. See Rules 6(a) and 8(c),

18

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion to Request the Appointment of

21
22

Counsel (Doc. 8).
Dated this 12th day of February, 2018.

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-