Harris v. Boe

W.D. Washington

Harris v. Boe

DecidedMay 3, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00424

StatusUnknown

This text of Harris v. Boe (Harris v. Boe) 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

Harris v. Boe, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 TIMOTHY DESHAWN HARRIS, JR., CASE NO. 2:23-CV-424-BHS-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 12 v. COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL 13 NICOLE MORRISEY O'DONNELL, 14 Respondent.

15 The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States 16 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending in this action is Petitioner Timothy 17 Deshawn Harris, Jr.’s Request for an Attorney. Dkt. 7. 18 There is no right appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an 19 evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is necessary for the effective utilization of 20 discovery procedures. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v. 21 Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 22 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court may appoint 24 1 counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. 2 In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the 3 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 4 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.

5 Here, the Court does not find good cause for granting leave to conduct discovery; thus, 6 counsel is not necessary to effectively utilize discovery. Further, the Court has not determined 7 an evidentiary hearing is required. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 8 District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). Moreover, Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief 9 raised in the Petition, the grounds are not factually or legally complex, and Petitioner has not 10 shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of this case. See Dkt. 1-1. Thus, Petitioner has not 11 shown the interests of justice require the Court to appoint counsel at this time. 12 As Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate, the request for 13 counsel is denied without prejudice. 14 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2023.

15 A 16 David W. Christel 17 Chief 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

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 TIMOTHY DESHAWN HARRIS, JR., CASE NO. 2:23-CV-424-BHS-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 12 v. COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL 13 NICOLE MORRISEY O'DONNELL, 14 Respondent.

15 The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States 16 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending in this action is Petitioner Timothy 17 Deshawn Harris, Jr.’s Request for an Attorney. Dkt. 7. 18 There is no right appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an 19 evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is necessary for the effective utilization of 20 discovery procedures. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v. 21 Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 22 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court may appoint 24 1 counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. 2 In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the 3 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 4 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.

5 Here, the Court does not find good cause for granting leave to conduct discovery; thus, 6 counsel is not necessary to effectively utilize discovery. Further, the Court has not determined 7 an evidentiary hearing is required. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 8 District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). Moreover, Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief 9 raised in the Petition, the grounds are not factually or legally complex, and Petitioner has not 10 shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of this case. See Dkt. 1-1. Thus, Petitioner has not 11 shown the interests of justice require the Court to appoint counsel at this time. 12 As Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate, the request for 13 counsel is denied without prejudice. 14 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2023.

15 A 16 David W. Christel 17 Chief United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harris v. Boe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-boe-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack