Amador v. Anderson

W.D. Washington

Amador v. Anderson

DecidedJune 25, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00737

StatusUnknown

This text of Amador v. Anderson (Amador v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amador v. Anderson, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 DANIEL S. AMADOR, II, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00737-BHS-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL, DKT. 7, AND STRIKING 11 LISA ANDERSON, MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 12 Respondent.

13 In May 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and submitted the $5.00 14 filing fee. On June 21, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion 15 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkts. 7 and 8. 16 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 20 F.2d 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 954. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood 1 of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in 2 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. 3 Plaintiff’s habeas petition establishes he able to articulate his claims pro se. It is too early 4 to determine if discovery should be conducted. In addition, the Court has not determined an

5 evidentiary hearing will be required in this case, or if it is even available. See Rule Governing 6 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 8(c). The Court thus finds Petitioner has 7 not shown “the interests of Justice” require appointment of counsel. 8 The Court also finds Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is moot because 9 the Courts’ records indicate the filing fee was paid on May 29, 2024. 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

11 1. The motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 7, is DENIED.

12 2. The motion to proceed IFP, Dkt. 8, is STRICKEN as moot.

13 DATED this 25th day of June, 2024. 14 A 15

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 16 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 DANIEL S. AMADOR, II, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00737-BHS-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL, DKT. 7, AND STRIKING 11 LISA ANDERSON, MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 12 Respondent.

13 In May 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and submitted the $5.00 14 filing fee. On June 21, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion 15 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkts. 7 and 8. 16 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 20 F.2d 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 954. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood 1 of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in 2 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. 3 Plaintiff’s habeas petition establishes he able to articulate his claims pro se. It is too early 4 to determine if discovery should be conducted. In addition, the Court has not determined an

5 evidentiary hearing will be required in this case, or if it is even available. See Rule Governing 6 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 8(c). The Court thus finds Petitioner has 7 not shown “the interests of Justice” require appointment of counsel. 8 The Court also finds Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is moot because 9 the Courts’ records indicate the filing fee was paid on May 29, 2024. 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

11 1. The motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 7, is DENIED.

12 2. The motion to proceed IFP, Dkt. 8, is STRICKEN as moot.

13 DATED this 25th day of June, 2024. 14 A 15

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 16 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Amador v. Anderson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amador-v-anderson-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack