Pendley v. Bennett

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 13, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01141
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 TRAVIS C.D. PENDLEY, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01141-DGE-GJL 9 Petitioner, v. ORDER ON SECOND RENEWED 10 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL JASON BENNETT, 11 Respondent. 12

13 This matter is before the Court on referral from the District Court and on Petitioner’s 14 renewed Motion for court appointed counsel (“Motion”). Dkt. 22. Respondent opposes the 15 Motion. See Dkt. 23. 16 There is no right to appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an 17 evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is necessary for the effective utilization of 18 discovery procedures. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v. 19 Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 20 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing 21 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). However, the Court may 22 appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d 23 at 954. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court “must evaluate the likelihood of 24 1 success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 2 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. 3 The instant Motion is Petitioner’s third request for counsel and is not materially different 4 from his previous requests. See Dkts. 5, 15, 22. In this Motion, Petitioner argues the issues in his

5 case are complex, he is untrained in the law, he is representing himself, and he is suffering from 6 mental health disorders and degenerative disc disease. Dkt. 22 at 4–5. 7 However, the Court has reviewed the Petition and Answer and finds that the grounds for 8 relief raised in the Petition do not appear to be so exceptionally complex as to warrant the 9 appointment of counsel at this time. Further, Petitioner has not shown that his health conditions 10 have affected his ability to litigate his case. Finally, the balance of reasons cited by Petitioner in 11 the Motion are issues common to other pro se litigants and are not exceptional. Therefore, they 12 do not warrant the appointment of counsel. See Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App’x 610, 612 (9th 13 Cir. 2020) (denying appointment of counsel because plaintiff’s “circumstances were not 14 exceptionally different from the majority of the challenges faced by pro se litigants) (citations

15 omitted). 16 While the Court recognizes the challenges faced by pro se litigants in preparing a case 17 without legal counsel, the law dictates that Petitioner’s stated conditions, alone, do not compel 18 this Court to appoint counsel. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 23

24 1 As Petitioner has not demonstrated appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, 2 the renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 22) is DENIED without prejudice. 3 Dated this 13th day of September, 2024. 4 A 5 6 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23