Fannon v. Oliver-Estes

Filing 4

ORDER denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke.(CMG)(cc mailed to Petitioner)

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

4
5
6

LEO FANNON,
Case No. 17-cv-05790-BHS-TLF

7
8
9

Petitioner,

WASHINGTON STATE,
Respondent.

10
11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

v.

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel.

12

Dkt. 2. Having carefully considered this motion and balance of the record, the Court finds it

13

should be denied at this time, without prejudice. The petitioner will be allowed to renew this

14

motion if, at a later time in the proceedings, the interests of justice would require appointment of

15

counsel.

16

“
[T]he Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions.
”

17

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Pennyslvania v. Finley, 481

18

U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (
“[T]he right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no

19

further. ). Appointment of counsel is required“if necessary for the effective utilization of
”

20

discovery procedures . . . , or if an evidentiary hearing is required. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d
”

21

952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Rule 6(a) and Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254); see also Owino

22

v. Napolitano, 575 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2009).

23
24
25
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1

1

A district court also may appoint counsel “under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A at any stage of the

2

case if the interest of justice so requires. Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. In deciding whether to
”

3

appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the

4

ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

5

involved. Id.
”

6

Mr. Fannon has not shown at this stage of the proceedings that the interests of justice

7

require appointment of counsel. Indeed, the petition has not even been served yet. At this point

8

petitioner appears capable of articulating his claims pro se with sufficient adequacy.

9
10
11

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 2) is DENIED, without
prejudice. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the petitioner.
Dated this 10th day of October, 2017.

12
13

A

14
15

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2