Nguyen v. Ferguson

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01163
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 QUY DINH NGUYEN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01163-JLR-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER ON PETITIONER’S 12 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL BOB FERGUSON, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently before the Court is 16 Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (the “Motion”). Dkt. 13. Respondent has not filed a 17 response in opposition to the Motion and the deadline to do so has elapsed. Respondent filed a 18 Motion to Transfer or Dismiss the Petition on January 2, 2025. Dkt. 15. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 21 unless (1) counsel is required to prevent a due process violation, (2) an evidentiary hearing is 22 required, or (3) such appointment is necessary for the effective utilization of discovery 23 procedures. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 24 1 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United 2 States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 3 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) 4 and 8(c). Even where habeas counsel is not required as a matter of right, the Court has discretion

5 to appoint counsel for financially eligible petitioners “when it determines ‘that the interests of 6 justice so require.’” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A); see also Dillon v. 7 United States, 307 F.2d 445, 447 (9th Cir. 1962) (in circumstances where appointment of counsel 8 is not mandated, the decision to appoint counsel falls within the “sound discretion of the court”). 9 In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court evaluates “the likelihood of success on 10 the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 11 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954; see, e.g., Stokes v. Roe, 18 12 F. App’x 478, 479 (9th Cir. 2001) (reversing district court’s denial of habeas counsel under 13 abuse of discretion standard where petitioner raised “nonfrivolous claims” and the “record 14 raise[d] clear questions” about the petitioner’s mental state).

15 II. DISCUSSION 16 In his Motion, Petitioner argues that he is unable to afford an attorney and that an 17 individual who previously helped him “with legal arguments and translation from English to 18 Vietnamese has been moved to some other federal institution[.]” Dkt. 13. 19 At this time, the Court does not find good cause for granting Petitioner’s Motion. 20 Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief raised in a Petition. Dkt. 4. It is still early 21 in Petitioner’s habeas proceedings, and Petitioner has not demonstrated he is likely to succeed on 22 the merits of his case or that an evidentiary hearing will be necessary. Moreover, Respondent’s 23 Motion to Transfer or Dismiss asserts that the Petition is barred because it is a successive petition

24 1 for which this Court has no jurisdiction, grounds which are not factually or legally complex. Dkt. 2 15 at 4–7. 3 Accordingly, the Court finds Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is 4 appropriate at this time. Petitioner’s Motion (Dkt. 13) is denied without prejudice. If Petitioner

5 requires additional time to submit future filings because of delays caused by translation of 6 documents to Vietnamese, he may seek an extension of time to file or respond on that basis. 7 III. CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons above, Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 13) is DENIED 9 without prejudice. 10 Dated this 7th day of January, 2025. 11 A 12 13 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24