Dumont v. Shinn et al

Filing 52

ORDER that the motion for appointment of counsel 50 is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file objections 51 is granted to the limited extent that Petitioner's objections to the R&R are due by October 3, 2024. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/29/2024. (KLG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gina Jeannette Dumont,

10

Petitioner,

11

v.

12

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et
al.,

13
14

No. CV-22-08192-PCT-JAT
ORDER

Respondents.

15

On August 6, 2024, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued a

16

Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Petitioner’s petition for writ of

17

habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 49). Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time to

18

file objections to the R&R and a motion to appoint counsel.

19

Generally, habeas petitioners are not entitled to appointed counsel. Chaney v. Lewis,

20

801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Kreiling v. Field,

21

431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th

22

Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996 (1966). The Court has discretion to appoint counsel

23

when a judge “determines that the interests of justice so require.” Terrovona v. Kincheloe,

24

912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 979 (1991) (quoting 18 U.S.C.

25

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B)). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the

26

district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of

27

the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

28

involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

1

Here, the R&R recommends that relief be denied. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a

2

likelihood of success on the merits. Further, Petitioner has articulated her claims pro se

3

without difficulty. Thus, the request for appointed counsel will be denied.

4

The Court will grant Petitioner an extension of time to file her objections. However,

5

Petitioner’s claimed need for a “lengthy” objection because she has much to attend to

6

because she is no longer in custody is not availing. Petitioner will need to dedicate time to

7

this matter within the time limits set forth herein.

8

Based on the foregoing,

9

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 50) is denied.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file

11

objections (Doc. 51) is granted to the limited extent that Petitioner’s objections to the R&R

12

are due by October 3, 2024.

13

Dated this 29th day of August, 2024.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-