Starr v. Obenland

Filing 18

ORDER denying petitioner's 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel; and granting petitioner's 17 Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to respondent's answer. Petitioner must file and serve any response no later than 09/29/14 and the new Noting Date for respondent's answer is 10/3/2014. A copy of this Order has been mailed to petitioner today. Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.(GB)

01
02
03
04
05
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

06
07
08 BRENT T. STARR,
09
10
11
12

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
MIKE OBENLAND,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________ )

CASE NO. C14-0405-RAJ-MAT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

13
14

This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter comes before

15 the Court at the present time on petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an
16 extension of time to file a response to respondent’s answer.

Respondent has filed no response

17 to either motion. The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s motions, and the balance of the
18 record, hereby ORDERS as follows:
19

(1)

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 16) is DENIED. There is

20 no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an
21 evidentiary hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir.
22 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); and Rule 8(c) of the Rules
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
PAGE -1

01 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court may exercise
02 its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the "interests of
03 justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. It does not appear at this juncture that an evidentiary
04 hearing will be required in this matter and petitioner has not demonstrated that the interests of
05 justice are best served by appointment of counsel at this time.
(2)

06

Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED. Petitioner is

07 directed to file and serve any response to respondent’s answer not later than September 29,
08 2014.
09

(3)

This matter is RE-NOTED on the Court’s calendar for consideration on October

10 3, 2014.
11

(4)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

12 respondent, and to the Honorable Richard A. Jones.
13
14

DATED this 30th day of July, 2014.

15

A

16

Mary Alice Theiler
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
PAGE -2