Crow v. Hayes

Filing 17

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.(CMG)cc: Plaintiff

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

8
9
10

TOMMY LEE CROW JR.,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Petitioner,

CASE NO. C16-5277 RJB-JRC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR COUNSEL

v.
RON HAYES,
Respondent.

The District Court has referred this petition for a writ of habeas corpus to United States
Magistrate Judge, J. Richard Creatura. The authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. Petitioner seeks relief from a state
conviction, thus, the petition is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Before the Court is petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel. Dkt. 14. Under
separate order, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be
dismissed to allow him to pursue state court remedies. Dkt. 16.
There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2254,
unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is “necessary for the effective

24
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
COUNSEL - 1

1 utilization of discovery procedures.” See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United
2 States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894
3 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules
4 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court also
5 may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt,
6 718 F.2d at 754. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, however, the Court “must evaluate the
7 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims
8 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.
9

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

10 does the Court find good cause for granting him leave to do so at this stage of the proceedings.
11 See Rule Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a). In addition,
12 the Court has not determined that an evidentiary hearing will be required, nor does it appear that
13 one is needed at this time. See Rule Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
14 Courts 8(c). Petitioner has not shown that he has exhausted his state court remedies at this time.
15

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 14) is denied.

16
17

Dated this 8th day of August, 2016.

18

A

19

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

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