Kevin Dale Best v. Karin Arnold

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01689
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 KEVIN DALE BEST,

9 Petitioner, Case No. C25-1689-JLR-MLP

10 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 11 KARIN ARNOLD, MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 Respondent.

14 This is a federal habeas action proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a 15 motion seeking appointment of counsel in this matter. (Dkt. # 9.) Petitioner asserts in his motion 16 that he lacks the resources to retain counsel, and he suggests he will be unable to effectively 17 respond to Respondent’s answer to the petition without the benefit of counsel.1 (Id. at 2.) 18 Petitioner also suggests he will need counsel for an evidentiary hearing which he anticipates will 19 be necessary in this matter. (See id.) Respondent has filed a response to Petitioner’s request for 20 counsel in which she argues that Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is currently 21 necessary, and thus, that Petitioner’s motion should be denied as without merit or, in the 22 alternative, as premature. (Dkt. # 10.) 23 1 Respondent’s answer to the petition has not been filed as it is not yet due. (See dkt. # 7.) 1 There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under § 2254 unless an 2 evidentiary hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); 3 Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 4 However, the Court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible

5 individual where the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. “In deciding whether to 6 appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success 7 on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 8 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 9 Nothing in the record currently before the Court suggests that an evidentiary hearing will 10 be required in this matter and, thus, Petitioner has no right to appointment of counsel. The 11 question is therefore whether appointment of counsel is otherwise appropriate. Petitioner has not 12 demonstrated that it is. Petitioner’s submissions to date, which include his petition (dkt. # 6) and 13 a supplemental brief in support of his petition (dkt. # 4), reveal that Petitioner’s claims are not

14 overly complex and that he has amply demonstrated an ability to articulate the legal and factual 15 bases of his claims without the assistance of counsel. Moreover, the contents of Petitioner’s 16 submissions undermine any suggestion that he is unable to litigate this federal habeas action 17 without the assistance of counsel. The Court notes, in particular, that Petitioner’s supplemental 18 brief contains extensive legal argument on the merits of his claims. (See dkt. # 6.) Finally, the 19 Court observes that the record is not yet sufficiently developed for this Court to determine 20 whether Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. 21 Petitioner thus fails to demonstrate that the interests of justice warrant appointment of 22 counsel. Counsel will be appointed, as required, should the Court later determine that an 23 evidentiary hearing is necessary. 1 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 2 (1) Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. # 9) is DENIED. 3 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for 4 Respondent, and to the Honorable James L. Robart.

5 DATED this 4th day of November, 2025.

6 A 7

MICHELLE L. PETERSON 8 United States Magistrate Judge

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