Jacobson v. Strange

W.D. Washington

Jacobson v. Strange

DecidedMay 1, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-05330

StatusUnknown

This text of Jacobson v. Strange (Jacobson v. Strange) 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

Jacobson v. Strange, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 ERIC JACOBSON, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05330-MJP-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 11 CHERYL STRANGE, et al., 12 Respondent.

13 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action. Dkt. 14 7. 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 There is an insufficient basis to find an evidentiary hearing is necessary. If the Court later 18 finds an evidentiary hearing is necessary, it will appoint counsel, then, if Petitioner is deemed 19 financially eligible. The Court also finds Petitioner has not demonstrated the interests of justice 20 require the appointment of counsel. Petitioner contends counsel should be appointed because the 21 claims he presents involve substantial and complex legal and mixed questions of lack and fact 22 and that he “probably” needs experts to frame or prove his claims. 23 1 The Court finds the pleadings Petitioner has submitted shows he has the ability to present 2 his claims and that his claims are not so complex that counsel must be appointed. 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 7, is DENIED without

5 prejudice. 6 2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to petitioner and the assigned District 7 Judge. 8 9 DATED this 1st day of Day, 2023. 10 A 11 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 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 ERIC JACOBSON, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05330-MJP-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 11 CHERYL STRANGE, et al., 12 Respondent.

13 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action. Dkt. 14 7. 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 There is an insufficient basis to find an evidentiary hearing is necessary. If the Court later 18 finds an evidentiary hearing is necessary, it will appoint counsel, then, if Petitioner is deemed 19 financially eligible. The Court also finds Petitioner has not demonstrated the interests of justice 20 require the appointment of counsel. Petitioner contends counsel should be appointed because the 21 claims he presents involve substantial and complex legal and mixed questions of lack and fact 22 and that he “probably” needs experts to frame or prove his claims. 23 1 The Court finds the pleadings Petitioner has submitted shows he has the ability to present 2 his claims and that his claims are not so complex that counsel must be appointed. 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 7, is DENIED without

5 prejudice. 6 2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to petitioner and the assigned District 7 Judge. 8 9 DATED this 1st day of Day, 2023. 10 A 11 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jacobson v. Strange, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobson-v-strange-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack