Curry v. Attorney General's Office of the State of Washington et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.(CMG)(cc mailed to Plaintiff)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 WILLIAM CURRY, JR., Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05314-RBL-JRC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL v. WILLIAM VAN HOOK, Respondent. 15 Before the Court is petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 8. He filed an 16 amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his civil commitment as a sexually 17 violent predator. Dkt. 6. He alleges violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 18 Amendment rights. Id. Under a separate order, the Court directed service of the petition. Dkt. 7. 19 Respondents filed a response on August 16, 2017. Dkt. 12. 20 There is no right to appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an 21 evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is necessary for the effective utilization of 22 discovery procedures. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v. 23 Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL -1 1 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing 2 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court may appoint 3 counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so requires.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954 4 (quoting Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 8(c)). In 5 deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the 6 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 7 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. 8 Here, the Court directed service of the petition and the time for filing an answer has not 9 run. See Dkt. 5. As the response has only recently been filed, the Court has not yet found good 10 cause for granting leave to conduct discovery and has not determined an evidentiary hearing will 11 be required. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) 12 and 8(c). Furthermore, despite any legal complexities, petitioner has effectively articulated his 13 grounds for relief raised in the petition. Petitioner has not shown the interest of justice otherwise 14 require the Court to appoint counsel at this stage. 15 16 17 Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 8) is denied without prejudice. Dated this 16th day of August, 2017. A 18 19 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL -2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?