Pope v. State of Washington

Filing 17

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Petitioner)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

REX L POPE,

11
12
13
14

Petitioner,
v.
JEFFREY A UTTECHT,

CASE NO. C14-5497 BHS-KLS
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

Respondent.

15
16

This matter is before the Court on Mr. Pope’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus that he

17 filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner asks for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 9. The
18 Court, having reviewed petitioner’s motion, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:
19

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2254,

20 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is “necessary for the effective
21 utilization of discovery procedures.” See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United
th
22 States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9 Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d
th
th
23 1129, 1130 (9 Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9 Cir. 1983); Rules

24 Governing 28 U.S.C. §2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL- 1

1 also may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.”
2 Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 754. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, however, the Court “must
3 evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate
4 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.
5

Petitioner has not requested that he be allowed to conduct discovery in this matter, nor

6 does it appear at this time that discovery is appropriate. See Rule Governing 28 U.S.C. §2254
7 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a). In addition, the Court has not determined an
8 evidentiary hearing will be required in this case, nor does it appear one is needed at this point.
9 See Rule Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 8(c). Petitioner
10 has not shown that his particular conditions of confinement are such that “the interests of justice”
11 require appointment of counsel.
12

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 9) hereby is DENIED.

13

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to petitioner and to counsel for respondent.

14

Dated this 14th day of November, 2014.

A

15
16

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL- 2