Nguyen v. Maggie Miller-Stout

Filing 14

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge Karen L Strombom.(MET) cc: petitioner

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

DOANH QUOC NGUYEN,
Petitioner,

10
11
12

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
SECOND MOTION FOR COUNSEL

v.
MAGGIE MILLER STOUT,
Respondent.

13
14

CASE NO. C14-5202 BHS-KLS

On April 9, 2014, the Court denied Petitioner’s first motion for the appointment of

15 counsel. Dkts. 8 and 10. On April 17, 2014, Petitioner filed an Amended Motion Requesting
16 Court Appointed Counsel. Dkt. 11. He states that he is unable to afford counsel, his
17 imprisonment greatly limits his ability to litigate, counsel would be better able to present
18 evidence, and that Petitioner is unable to fully understand or read English. Id. He also states that
19 he has applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Id. However, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing
20 fee and IFP status has not been granted.
21

As previously noted by the Court, there is no right to have counsel appointed in cases

22 brought under 28 U.S.C. §2254, unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is
23 “necessary for the effective utilization of discovery procedures.” See McCleskey v. Zant, 499
24 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995);
ORDER - 1

1 United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,
2 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
3 6(a) and 8(c). The Court also may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of
4 justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 754. In deciding whether to appoint counsel,
5 however, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of
6 the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
7 involved.” Id. Petitioner has demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims in his petition for
8 writ of habeas corpus.
9

Additionally, the Court does not find good cause for granting leave to conduct discovery

10 and has not determined that an evidentiary hearing will be required. See Rules Governing
11 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). Moreover, in determining
12 whether relief is available to Petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), the Court’s review is
13 limited to the record before the state court. Cullen v. Pinholster, ---U.S.---, 131 S.Ct. 1388
14 (2011).
15

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 11) is DENIED.

16

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.

17

DATED this 29th day of April, 2014.

A

18

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2