Dumont 324136 v. Thornell

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: August 30, 2024
• Docket: 3:22-cv-08192
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Gina Jeannette Dumont, No. CV-22-08192-PCT-JAT

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 On August 6, 2024, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued a 16 Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Petitioner’s petition for writ of 17 habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 49). Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time to 18 file objections to the R&R and a motion to appoint counsel. 19 Generally, habeas petitioners are not entitled to appointed counsel. Chaney v. Lewis, 20 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Kreiling v. Field, 21 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th 22 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996 (1966). The Court has discretion to appoint counsel 23 when a judge “determines that the interests of justice so require.” Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 24 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 979 (1991) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 25 § 3006A(a)(2)(B)). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the 26 district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of 27 the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 28 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 Here, the R&R recommends that relief be denied. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Further, Petitioner has articulated her claims pro se 3 || without difficulty. Thus, the request for appointed counsel will be denied. 4 The Court will grant Petitioner an extension of time to file her objections. However, || Petitioner’s claimed need for a “lengthy” objection because she has much to attend to 6 || because she is no longer in custody is not availing. Petitioner will need to dedicate time to this matter within the time limits set forth herein. 8 Based on the foregoing, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 50) is denied. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file 11 || objections (Doc. 51) is granted to the limited extent that Petitioner’s objections to the R&R 12 || are due by October 3, 2024. 13 Dated this 29th day of August, 2024. 14 15 a 3 16 17 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-