Reesman v. Obenland

Filing 29

ORDER denying 22 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

JOEL PAUL REESMAN,
Petitioner,

10
11
12

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR COUNSEL

v.
MIKE OBENLAND,
Respondent.

13
14

CASE NO. C14-5271 RBL-KLS

Before the Court is Mr. Reesman’s motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 22. The

15 undersigned stayed this petition in a separate order and is holding it in abeyance until petitioner
16 has exhausted his state claims. Respondent did not oppose petitioner’s motion to stay the action
17 and stated “[t]he requested stay appears appropriate.” Dkt. 25.
18

In light of the fact that the petition has been stayed, the Court DENIES the motion for

19 appointment of counsel. Further, the Court notes that there is no right to have counsel appointed
20 in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2254, unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such
21 appointment is “necessary for the effective utilization of discovery procedures.” See, McCleskey
22 v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir.
23 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718
24 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
ORDER - 1

1 Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court also may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest
2 of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 754. In deciding whether to appoint counsel,
3 however, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of
4 the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
5 involved.” Id. Because this matter has been stayed, the Court is not in a position to make the
6 necessary evaluation.
7

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 22) is DENIED.

8

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

9
10

DATED this 5th day of November, 2014.

11

A

12

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2