Hosino v. Garrett

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 Rodney Hosino, Case No. 2:21-cv-02234-GMN-VCF

7 Petitioner v. Order

8 Tim Garrett, et al.,

9 Respondents

10 11 In this habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner, Rodney Hosino, filed a 12 motion for appointment of counsel with his habeas petition that the court overlooked when it 13 screened the petition. ECF Nos. 1-4, 6. For reasons that follow, the court denies the motion. 14 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus 15 proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 16 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 17 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.). 18 However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of 19 counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person of such 20 limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 21 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970). Hosino’s petition presents the 22 grounds on which he challenges his state criminal proceeding in a reasonably clear manner, and 23 1 the legal issues do not appear to be particularly complex. Thus, appointment of counsel is not 2 warranted in this case. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF 4 No. 1-4) is DENIED.

5 Dated: October 21, 2022 6 _________________________________ U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23