Steele v. US Parole Commission et al

Filing 8

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 6 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(GMR- cc: petitioner)

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

7
8
9

LAWRENCE RICHARD STEELE,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. C16-5265 RBL-KLS

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR COUNSEL

v.
US PAROLE COMMISSION, KEVIN
STRAITE, WARDEN MARION
FEATHER,

14

Respondents.

15
Petitioner Lawrence Richard Steele seeks an order appointing counsel in his habeas
16
proceeding. Dkt. 3. Having carefully considered the motion, the Court finds that it should be
17
denied.
18
DISCUSSION
19
There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a federal habeas corpus
20
proceeding. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551,
21
555 (1987). If an evidentiary hearing is required, the Court may appoint counsel for a petitioner
22
who qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(g). Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The Court may
23
also appoint counsel at an earlier stage of the proceedings if the interest of justice so requires. 18
24
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
COUNSEL- 1

1 U.S.C. § 3006(A); see also 21 U.S.C. 848(q); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912
2 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); Dillon v. United States, 307 F.2d 445, 447 (9th Cir. 1962).
3 “In exercising its discretion, the district court should consider the legal complexity of the case,
4 the factual complexity of the case, and the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his
5 claims, along with any other relevant factors.” Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir.
6 1994) (citing Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994)).
7

Mr. Steele fails to show the appointment of counsel is necessary at this time. The motion

8 is at best premature. Respondent has not yet answered the petition, the Court has not determined
9 whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and Mr. Steele has not shown the case presents
10 complex legal or factual issues that would require the appointment of counsel in the interests of
11 justice.
12

Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 3) is DENIED. The Clerk

13 shall send a copy of this Order to Petitioner and to counsel for Respondent.
14

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2016.

15

A

16

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

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