Archaga-Reyes v. Warner

W.D. Washington

Archaga-Reyes v. Warner

DecidedMarch 14, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00231

StatusUnknown

This text of Archaga-Reyes v. Warner (Archaga-Reyes v. Warner) 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

Archaga-Reyes v. Warner, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 CHRISTIAN ARCHAGA-REYES, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C24-0231-JHC-SKV 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 11 JACK WARNER, 12 Respondent. 13

14 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter comes before 15 the Court on Petitioner’s two pending motions for appointment of counsel. Dkts. 8 & 12. The 16 Court, having reviewed the motions and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as 17 follows: 18 (1) There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 19 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 20 (9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); and Rule 8(c) of the 21 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court may, 22 however, exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the 23 “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 1 In this case, the record is not yet sufficiently developed for the Court to determine 2 whether an evidentiary hearing will be required, and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 3 interests of justice are best served by appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner, moreover, 4 filed a motion to stay these proceedings while he exhausts his state court remedies, Dkt. 6,

5 Respondent does not oppose that motion, Dkt. 11, and, unless Petitioner advises the Court that he 6 no longer seeks a stay, the procedures in this matter may soon be stayed. See Dkt. 10 (renoting 7 Motion to Stay and Abey Federal Habeas Proceedings for consideration on March 22, 2024 and 8 providing for Petitioner’s filing of a reply to the motion on or before that noting date). For these 9 reasons, Petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel, Dkts. 8 & 12, are DENIED. 10 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the 11 Honorable John H. Chun. 12 Dated this 14th day of March, 2024. 13 A 14 S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge 15

16 17 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 CHRISTIAN ARCHAGA-REYES, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C24-0231-JHC-SKV 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 11 JACK WARNER, 12 Respondent. 13

14 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter comes before 15 the Court on Petitioner’s two pending motions for appointment of counsel. Dkts. 8 & 12. The 16 Court, having reviewed the motions and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as 17 follows: 18 (1) There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 19 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 20 (9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); and Rule 8(c) of the 21 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court may, 22 however, exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the 23 “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 1 In this case, the record is not yet sufficiently developed for the Court to determine 2 whether an evidentiary hearing will be required, and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 3 interests of justice are best served by appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner, moreover, 4 filed a motion to stay these proceedings while he exhausts his state court remedies, Dkt. 6,

5 Respondent does not oppose that motion, Dkt. 11, and, unless Petitioner advises the Court that he 6 no longer seeks a stay, the procedures in this matter may soon be stayed. See Dkt. 10 (renoting 7 Motion to Stay and Abey Federal Habeas Proceedings for consideration on March 22, 2024 and 8 providing for Petitioner’s filing of a reply to the motion on or before that noting date). For these 9 reasons, Petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel, Dkts. 8 & 12, are DENIED. 10 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the 11 Honorable John H. Chun. 12 Dated this 14th day of March, 2024. 13 A 14 S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Archaga-Reyes v. Warner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archaga-reyes-v-warner-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack