Blue v. Key

W.D. Washington

Blue v. Key

DecidedMay 4, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00172

StatusUnknown

This text of Blue v. Key (Blue v. Key) 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JOSEPH GLEN BLUE, Case No. 2:21-cv-00172-RAJ-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 8 APPOINT COUNSEL JAMES KEY, 9 Respondent. 10

11 The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United 12 States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. Currently pending in this action is Petitioner 13 Joseph Glen Blue’s requests for appointed counsel. Dkt. 9 at 110; Dkt. 10. 14 There is no right appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 15 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is necessary for the 16 effective utilization of discovery procedures. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 17 (1991); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United 18 States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 19 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 20 District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if 21 the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. In deciding whether to 22 appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as 23 24 1 well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 2 of the legal issues involved.” Id. 3 At this time, the Court has ordered the Clerk to serve the Petition; however, an 4 answer has not been filed. Therefore, the Court does not find good cause for granting

5 leave to conduct discovery and has not determined an evidentiary hearing will be 6 required. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 7 6(a) and 8(c). Furthermore, Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief raised 8 in the Petition, the grounds are not factually or legally complex, and it is difficult to 9 determine the likelihood of success on the merits without an answer and the state court 10 record. See Dkt. 5, 12. Thus, Petitioner has not shown the interests of justice require 11 the Court to appoint counsel at this stage in the case. 12 As Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, 13 the Motion for Counsel (Dkt. 10) is denied without prejudice. 14 Dated this 4th day of May, 2021.

15 16 A

17 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JOSEPH GLEN BLUE, Case No. 2:21-cv-00172-RAJ-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 8 APPOINT COUNSEL JAMES KEY, 9 Respondent. 10

11 The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United 12 States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. Currently pending in this action is Petitioner 13 Joseph Glen Blue’s requests for appointed counsel. Dkt. 9 at 110; Dkt. 10. 14 There is no right appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 15 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is necessary for the 16 effective utilization of discovery procedures. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 17 (1991); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United 18 States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 19 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 20 District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if 21 the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. In deciding whether to 22 appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as 23 24 1 well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 2 of the legal issues involved.” Id. 3 At this time, the Court has ordered the Clerk to serve the Petition; however, an 4 answer has not been filed. Therefore, the Court does not find good cause for granting

5 leave to conduct discovery and has not determined an evidentiary hearing will be 6 required. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 7 6(a) and 8(c). Furthermore, Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief raised 8 in the Petition, the grounds are not factually or legally complex, and it is difficult to 9 determine the likelihood of success on the merits without an answer and the state court 10 record. See Dkt. 5, 12. Thus, Petitioner has not shown the interests of justice require 11 the Court to appoint counsel at this stage in the case. 12 As Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, 13 the Motion for Counsel (Dkt. 10) is denied without prejudice. 14 Dated this 4th day of May, 2021.

15 16 A

17 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Blue v. Key, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-v-key-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack