Hurley v. Bennett

W.D. Washington

Hurley v. Bennett

DecidedDecember 27, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-06091

StatusUnknown

This text of Hurley v. Bennett (Hurley v. Bennett) 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

Hurley v. Bennett, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 RICHARD LEE HURLEY, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-06091-TL-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 JASON BENNETT, 12 Respondent.

13 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action. Dkt. 14 6. A § 2254 petitioner is not entitled to appointment of counsel unless an evidentiary hearing is 15 required, and if one is not, only if the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; 16 Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 Petitioner contends the Court should grant him habeas relief on the grounds the state trial 18 judge’s imposition of an exceptional sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. This claim of legal 19 error indicates an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. If the Court later orders an evidentiary 20 hearing, it will appoint counsel if Petitioner is financially eligible. The Court also finds the 21 interests of justice does not require the appointment of counsel. Petitioner requests counsel on 22 the grounds he has “no money to hire a lawyer” but this is a circumstance virtually all prisoners 23 1 face. The Court further finds the pleadings Petitioner has submitted shows he has the ability to 2 present his claim and that his claim is not so complex that counsel must be appointed. 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 6, is DENIED without

5 prejudice. 6 2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Petitioner. 7 DATED this 27th day of December, 2023. 8 A 9 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 10

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 RICHARD LEE HURLEY, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-06091-TL-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 JASON BENNETT, 12 Respondent.

13 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action. Dkt. 14 6. A § 2254 petitioner is not entitled to appointment of counsel unless an evidentiary hearing is 15 required, and if one is not, only if the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; 16 Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 Petitioner contends the Court should grant him habeas relief on the grounds the state trial 18 judge’s imposition of an exceptional sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. This claim of legal 19 error indicates an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. If the Court later orders an evidentiary 20 hearing, it will appoint counsel if Petitioner is financially eligible. The Court also finds the 21 interests of justice does not require the appointment of counsel. Petitioner requests counsel on 22 the grounds he has “no money to hire a lawyer” but this is a circumstance virtually all prisoners 23 1 face. The Court further finds the pleadings Petitioner has submitted shows he has the ability to 2 present his claim and that his claim is not so complex that counsel must be appointed. 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 6, is DENIED without

5 prejudice. 6 2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Petitioner. 7 DATED this 27th day of December, 2023. 8 A 9 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 10

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hurley v. Bennett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurley-v-bennett-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack