Archaga-Reyes v. Warner

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00231
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 CHRISTIAN ARCHAGA-REYES

9 Petitioner, Case No. C24-231-JHC-SKV

10 v. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 11 JACK WARNER, AND DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL 12 Respondent.

14 This is a federal habeas action proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter comes 15 before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to 16 Respondent’s answer to Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. 23. Included in 17 Petitioner’s motion for extension of time is a request that counsel be appointed to assist him in 18 this matter. See id. at 3. Respondent has not responded in any fashion to Petitioner’s motion. 19 The Court, having reviewed Petitioner’s motion and the balance of the record, hereby finds and 20 ORDERS as follows: 21 (1) Petitioner’s unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a response to 22 Respondent’s answer (Dkt. 23) is GRANTED. Petitioner is directed to file his response not later 23 than August 11, 2025. Petitioner is advised that no further extensions will be granted. Thus, if ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 1 Petitioner fails to file his response by this date, the Court will proceed to disposition of his 2 federal habeas petition based solely on the contents of the petition and Respondent’s answer 3 thereto.

4 (2) Respondent’s answer to Petitioner’s federal habeas petition (Dkt. 21) is RE- 5 NOTED on the Court’s calendar for consideration on August 18, 2025. Respondent shall file 6 any reply brief in support of his answer by that date. 7 (3) Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. This is Petitioner’s 8 third request for counsel. Petitioner filed two motions for appointment of counsel early in this 9 action and both were denied by the Court in March 2024. See Dkts. 8, 12, 13. As Petitioner was 10 advised in the Court’s Order denying his prior motions, there is no right to have counsel 11 appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required. See 12 Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing 13 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court may, however, exercise its

14 discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the “interests of justice so 15 require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 16 The Court denied Petitioner’s first and second motions for counsel upon concluding that 17 the record was not sufficiently developed for the Court to determine whether an evidentiary 18 hearing would be required, and that Petitioner had not demonstrated the interests of justice would 19 be best served by appointment of counsel. Dkt. 13. The record is more developed now than it 20 was when Petitioner filed his first two motions for counsel in that the Court has before it 21 Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s petition as well as relevant portions of the state court 22 record. See Dkts. 21, 22. A review of these materials suggests that an evidentiary hearing will 23 likely not be required in this matter.

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 1 Moreover, nothing in this expanded record or in Petitioner’s current request for counsel 2 suggests that the interests of justice will be best served by appointment of counsel at this time. 3 Petitioner indicates that he is struggling to understand and respond to the statute of limitations

4 argument set forth in Respondent’s answer. See Dkt. 23 at 3. While the Court understands it 5 may have been difficult for Petitioner to research the statute of limitations issue and prepare a 6 response within the 21 days originally afforded him, nothing in the record suggests he will be 7 unable to research and prepare an adequate response within the additional 90 days the Court has 8 granted him in this Order. In sum, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that appointment of counsel is 9 warranted at this time. Counsel will be appointed, as required, should the Court later determine 10 that an evidentiary hearing is, in fact, necessary. 11 (4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for 12 Respondent, and to the Honorable John C. Chun. 13 DATED this 13th day of May, 2025.

15 A S. KATE VAUGHAN 16 United States Magistrate Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S