Parra-Interian v. Obenland

Filing 7

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 JUAN C PARRA-INTERIAN, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05481-RBL-DWC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL v. MIKE OBENLAND, Respondent. 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 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL - 1 1 counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 754. 2 In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on 3 the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 4 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. 5 Here, the Court directed service of the Petition and the time for filing an answer has not 6 run. See Dkt. 5. As an answer has not been filed, the Court does not find good cause for granting 7 leave to conduct discovery and has not determined an evidentiary hearing will be required. See 8 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). 9 Furthermore, Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief raised in the Petition, the 10 grounds are not factually or legally complex, and it is difficult to determine the likelihood of 11 success on the merits without an answer and the state court record. See Dkt. 3. Thus, Petitioner 12 has not shown the interest of justice requires the Court to appoint counsel at this stage in the 13 case. 14 15 16 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. 18 A 19 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 17 20 21 22 23 24 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?