Berniard v. Obenland

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 20, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05071
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CLABON T. BERNIARD, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05071-BHS-JRC 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING 12 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 MIKE OBENLAND, 14 Respondent. 15 16 The District Court has referred this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 17 2254 to United States Magistrate Judge, J. Richard Creatura, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. 19 Before the Court is petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel. Dkt. 8. The 20 Court has conducted a preliminary screening of petitioner’s petition and has directed that the 21 petition be served. See Dkt. 9. 22 There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 23 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is “necessary for the effective 24 1 utilization of discovery procedures.” See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United 2 States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 3 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules 4 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c).

5 The Court may request an attorney to represent indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(e)(1) but should do so only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections 7 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A finding of exceptional circumstances 8 requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 9 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 10 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). These factors must be viewed 11 together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Id. 12 Petitioner has not requested that he be allowed to conduct discovery in this matter nor 13 does the Court find good cause for granting him leave to do so at this stage of the proceedings. 14 See Rule Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a). In addition,

15 the Court has not determined that an evidentiary hearing will be required, nor does it appear that 16 one is needed at this time. See Rule Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 17 Courts 8(c). 18 Moreover, petitioner’s cited reasons for granting the appointment of counsel—that he 19 was young at the time of his conviction, that he has an intellectual disability, and that he has 20 difficulty formatting his petition without assistance—do not amount to the extraordinary 21 circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel. Although petitioner states that the issues 22 are complex such that they merit appointment of counsel, at this early stage, the Court finds that 23

24 1 the issues are not so complex that petitioner has been unable to adequately articulate them. Nor, 2 at this stage, is a likelihood of success on the merits apparent. 3 Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 8) is denied. 4 Dated this 20th day of April, 2020.

6 A 7 J. Richard Creatura 8 United States Magistrate Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24