(HC) Ryland v. Director of Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 COREY R. RYLAND, Case No. 1:23-cv-01191-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL

14 DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PRISONS, (ECF No. 34) 15 Respondent.

16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 34.) Petitioner asserts that he 20 is dealing with a “campaign of harassment” and retaliation by staff members at his facility. (Id. at 21 1.) Petitioner alleges that staff are withholding and delaying his legal mail1 and that he has been 22 denied access to the law library. (Id.) Petitioner accordingly requests that the Court appoint 23 counsel so that he may overcome these obstacles. 24 Respondent filed a response along with a declaration from Petitioner’s assigned 25 Correctional Counselor. (ECF Nos. 38, 38-1.) Petitioner was placed in a special housing unit 26 (“SHU”) from October 30, 2024, through November 7, 2024, and again from November 16, 27 1 For example, Petitioner alleges that he did not receive the Court’s November 25, 2024 order until 1 2024, through at least February 28, 2025. (ECF No. 38-1 at 2.) Mail is delivered to inmates in the 2 SHU Monday through Friday except for holidays. (ECF No. 38-1 at 2.) With respect to the delay 3 in receiving the Court’s November 25, 2024 order, the assigned Correctional Counselor declared: 4 The master log of legal mail at USP Atwater does not reflect receipt of legal mail for Petitioner from the Clerk of the United 5 States District Court for the Eastern District of California within the time frame that the Court’s November 25, 2024, Order should 6 have been received. If, however, the Clerk of Court did not mark the envelope containing the Court’s November 25, 2024, Order, 7 “Special mail – Open only in the presence of the inmate”, it was likely treated as general mail and not logged into the master log of 8 legal mail. For that reason, it is impossible for staff to verify when Petitioner actually received the Court’s November 25, 2024, Order. 9 10 (Id. at 3.) 11 While SHU inmates do not have a designated time to access the law library, SHU inmates 12 may submit an inmate request to staff. Here, Petitioner requested use of the law library during his 13 first stay in the SHU but was returned to general population before he could be taken to the law 14 library. (ECF No. 38-12 at 4.) Petitioner also requested use of the law library during his second 15 stay in the SHU and was taken to the law library on December 14, 2024. (Id.) 16 In the reply, Petitioner acknowledges that he was taken to the law library on December 17 14, 2024, but he emphasizes that he did not receive the Court’s November 25, 2024 order until 18 January 16, 2025. (ECF No. 44 at 1.) Petitioner also asserts that although he is no longer in the 19 SHU, Petitioner has been unlawfully transferred to U.S.P. Beaumont, which has been on 20 modified lockdown for the last two years. Petitioner contends that “counsel is needed to 21 overcome the campaign of harassment/retaliation tactic used by Respondent to cause Petitioner 22 discomfort in Petitioner[’s] quest to be hard in court.” (Id. at 2 (internal quotation marks 23 omitted).) 24 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 25 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 26 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 27 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 1 | success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 2 | of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 3 | 1983). 4 Petitioner asserts that counsel is needed, in part, due to a delay in receiving legal mail. 5 | Petitioner emphasizes that he did not receive the Court’s November 25, 2024 order until January 6 | 16, 2025. (ECF No. 44 at 1.) The November 25, 2024 order was an order granting Respondent’s 7 | motion for extension of time to file a response to the first amended petition. (ECF No. 30.) The 8 | delay in receiving the order did not cause any prejudice to Petitioner. Despite the various 9 | obstacles Petitioner alleges he has encountered, he has been able to file a reply in support of the 10 | instant motion to appoint counsel. Further, Petitioner has filed an opposition to Respondent’s 11 | motion to dismiss. At this point in the proceedings, there is nothing more for Petitioner to do 12 | with respect to litigating his petition. 13 Upon review of the petition and Petitioner’s various submissions in this matter, the Court 14 | finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved 15 | and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not 16 | extremely complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits 17 | such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 19 | counsel (ECF No. 34) is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22| Dated: _ May 30, 2025 [spe ey 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28