Hahn v. Sinclair
Filing
23
ORDER denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge Karen L Strombom.(MET) cc: Petitioner
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
4
5
6
AARON HAHN,
No. C13-5263 RBL/KLS
7
Petitioner,
v.
8
9
STEVE SINCLAIR,
10
Respondent.
11
12
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 21.
Respondent opposes the motion. ECF No. 22. Petitioner’s motion is premature and will be
13
denied.
14
BACKGROUND
15
On April 4, 2013, Petitioner Aaron Hahn, a Washington State prisoner, filed a petition for
16
17
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 13. On August 1, 2013, the Court
18
directed Respondent to file an answer to the petition within 45 days. ECF No. 14. Mr. Hahn
19
now files a motion for appointment of counsel to assist him in the habeas proceeding. ECF No.
20
21.
21
DISCUSSION
22
23
There is no right to the appointment of counsel in a non-capital case brought under 28
24
U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or unless such appointment is necessary
25
for the effective use of discovery procedures. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987);
26
United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.3d
ORDER - 1
1
425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing
2
Section 2254 Cases 6(a) and 8(c). The Court has discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A) to
3
appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interests of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718
4
F.2d at 954.
5
Respondent has not yet filed an answer and the state-court record, so it is premature to
6
7
decide at this point whether Mr. Hahn is or is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing in his case,
8
and it is equally premature to decide at this point whether there will be occasion for him to use
9
the discovery process. If the Court later determines an evidentiary hearing is necessary, the
10
Court will revisit this issue. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion will be denied without prejudice to
11
his ability to renew the motion in the event the Court orders an evidentiary hearing.
12
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
13
(1)
Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22) is denied
14
15
16
17
18
without prejudice.
(2)
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Petitioner and counsel for
Respondent.
DATED this 28th day of August, 2013.
A
19
20
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 2
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?