Hawkins v. Miller-Stout
Filing
26
ORDER denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Petitioner)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
5
6
7
CHARLES DENNIS HAWKINS,
8
9
10
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
v.
MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT,
Respondent.
11
12
CASE NO. C12-5477 RJB-KLS
Petitioner,
Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 23.
13 Having carefully reviewed the motion and balance of the record, the Court finds the motion shall
14 be denied.
15
16
DISCUSSION
There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2254,
17 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is “necessary for the effective
18 utilization of discovery procedures.” See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United
19 States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d
20 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules
21 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court also
22 may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt,
23 718 F.2d at 754. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, however, the Court “must evaluate the
24
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL- 1
1 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims
2 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.
3
Petitioner has not requested that he be allowed to conduct discovery in this matter, nor
4 does the Court find good cause for granting him leave to do so at this stage of the proceedings.
5 See Rule Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a). Petitioner has
6 not shown that his particular conditions of confinement are such that “the interests of Justice”
7 require appointment of counsel. In addition, the Court has not determined an evidentiary hearing
8 will be required in this case, nor does it appear one is needed at this point. See Rule Governing
9 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 8(c). Under separate Report and
10 Recommendation, the undersigned is recommending that the Court transfer the petition to the
11 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as a second or successive petition, pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule
12 22-3(a), and administratively close the file.
13
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23) is
14 DENIED. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Petitioner and to counsel for Respondent.
15
16
DATED this 19th day of November, 2012.
17
A
18
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF 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?
