Parra-Interian v. Obenland
ORDER Denying 4 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Juan Parra-Interian, Prisoner ID: 356878)(GMR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JUAN C PARRA-INTERIAN,
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05481-RBL-DWC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States
Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending in this action is Petitioner Juan C. ParraInterian’s Motion for Appointment of a Lawyer. Dkt. 4.
There is no right appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an
evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is “necessary for the effective utilization of
discovery procedures.” See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v.
Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129,
1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court may appoint
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL - 1
counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 754.
In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on
the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.
Here, the Court directed service of the Petition and the time for filing an answer has not
run. See Dkt. 5. As an answer has not been filed, the Court does not find good cause for granting
leave to conduct discovery and has not determined an evidentiary hearing will be required. See
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c).
Furthermore, Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief raised in the Petition, the
grounds are not factually or legally complex, and it is difficult to determine the likelihood of
success on the merits without an answer and the state court record. See Dkt. 3. Thus, Petitioner
has not shown the interest of justice requires the Court to appoint counsel at this stage in the
As Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, the
Motion for the Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice.
Dated this 25th day of July, 2017.
David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 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?