Free v. Key

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 5, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01551
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 JOHN CARLO FREE,

10 Petitioner, Case No. C19-1551-TSZ-MAT

11 v. ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS 12 JAMES KEY,

13 Respondent.

15 Petitioner proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas matter. 16 He filed several motions for the Court’s consideration. (Dkts. 14, 15, 17.) The Court, considering 17 the motions, any response, and the remainder of the record, hereby ORDERS as follows: 18 (1) Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply to Respondent’s Answer 19 (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED. The Court finds petitioner’s request for additional time reasonable. As 20 requested, petitioner’s filing deadline is herein extended to April 13, 2020. Respondent’s Answer 21 is RENOTED for consideration on April 17, 2020 and respondent may file and serve a reply no 22 later than the revised noting date. 23 (2) Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the Relevant State Record (Dkt. 15) is

ORDER 1 DENIED. Respondent complied with the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in submitting the 2 record and the Court is not persuaded, at least at this juncture, additional materials are necessary 3 for the Court’s consideration of the habeas petition. Further, and as suggested by respondent, 4 should the Court’s review of the briefing and records submitted in relation to the petition reveal

5 the need for additional records, the Court will order respondent to supplement the record 6 accordingly. See Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases. 7 (3) Petitioner also seeks the appointment of counsel. There is no right to have counsel 8 appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required. See 9 Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 10 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); and Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 11 States District Courts. The Court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially 12 eligible individual where the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Here, petitioner 13 fails to demonstrate the interests of justice are best served by appointment of counsel at the present

14 time. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 17) is DENIED. 15 (4) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable 16 Thomas S. Zilly. 17 DATED this 5th day of February, 2020. 18 A 19 Mary Alice Theiler 20 United States Magistrate Judge

21 22 23

ORDER