Blue v. Key

W.D. Washington

Blue v. Key

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided May 4, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00172·Unknown

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Case No. 2:21-cv-00172-RAJ-TLF Petitioner, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JAMES KEY, Respondent.

The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. Currently pending in this action is Petitioner Joseph Glen Blue’s requests for appointed counsel. Dkt. 9 at 110; Dkt. 10. There is no right appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is necessary for the effective utilization of discovery procedures. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. At this time, the Court has ordered the Clerk to serve the Petition; however, an answer has not been filed. Therefore, the Court does not find good cause for granting

leave to conduct discovery and has not determined an evidentiary hearing will be required. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). Furthermore, Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief raised in the Petition, the grounds are not factually or legally complex, and it is difficult to determine the likelihood of success on the merits without an answer and the state court record. See Dkt. 5, 12. Thus, Petitioner has not shown the interests of justice require the Court to appoint counsel at this stage in the case. As Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, the Motion for Counsel (Dkt. 10) is denied without prejudice. Dated this 4th day of May, 2021.

A

Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge

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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Case No. 2:21-cv-00172-RAJ-TLF Petitioner, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JAMES KEY, Respondent.

The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. Currently pending in this action is Petitioner Joseph Glen Blue’s requests for appointed counsel. Dkt. 9 at 110; Dkt. 10. There is no right appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is necessary for the effective utilization of discovery procedures. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. At this time, the Court has ordered the Clerk to serve the Petition; however, an answer has not been filed. Therefore, the Court does not find good cause for granting

leave to conduct discovery and has not determined an evidentiary hearing will be required. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). Furthermore, Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief raised in the Petition, the grounds are not factually or legally complex, and it is difficult to determine the likelihood of success on the merits without an answer and the state court record. See Dkt. 5, 12. Thus, Petitioner has not shown the interests of justice require the Court to appoint counsel at this stage in the case. As Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, the Motion for Counsel (Dkt. 10) is denied without prejudice. Dated this 4th day of May, 2021.

A

Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge

Blue v. Key, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Blue v. Key (Blue v. Key) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related