Samuels v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 27, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-02754
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ewing Redmond Samuels, No. CV-19-02754-PHX-ROS (ESW) 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s “Motion for Appointment of Advisory 17 Counsel” (Doc. 21). 18 “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to 19 appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed 20 counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 21 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when “the 22 interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (a) (2) (B). “In deciding whether to 23 appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of 24 success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se 25 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 26 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “Neither of these considerations is 27 dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 28 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 Having considered both elements, Petitioner has not shown that the interests of 2 justice require the appointment of counsel in this case. Petitioner has not demonstrated a 3 likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in 4 litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Petitioner’s filings 5 with the Court indicate that Petitioner is capable of navigating this proceeding and 6 presenting cogent arguments to the Court. Petitioner is in a position no different than 7 many pro se prisoner litigants. Should the Court determine that an evidentiary hearing in 8 this matter is required or counsel is necessary for the effective utilization of discovery 9 procedures, counsel may be appointed. See Rules 6(a) and 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 10 Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 21) will be denied. 11 The Court also has reviewed Petitioner’s “Motion for Federal Investigation into 12 the Death of Royce Emmett Walker” (Doc. 22), which is construed as a motion for 13 discovery. 14 Although a habeas proceeding is a civil suit, a habeas petitioner “does not enjoy 15 the presumptive entitlement to discovery of a traditional civil litigant.” Rich v. Calderon, 16 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1999); Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997) 17 (stating that unlike other civil litigants, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad 18 discovery). A court considering a habeas corpus petition is ordinarily limited to the state 19 court record. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180 (2011) (holding that “review 20 under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated 21 the claim on the merits”). Yet under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 22 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, a court may grant a habeas petitioner’s discovery request upon a 23 showing of good cause. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904. Good cause exists “where specific 24 allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the 25 facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief.” Id. at 26 908-09. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has advised that courts “should not 27 allow prisoners to use federal discovery for fishing expeditions to investigate mere 28 speculation.” Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. Of California, 98 F.3d 1} 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court does not find good cause to allow Petitioner to conduct discovery. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 22) will be denied. 3 Based on the foregoing, 4 IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s “Motion for Appointment of Advisory || Counsel” (Doc. 21). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s “Motion for Federal Investigation into the Death of Royce Emmett Walker” (Doc. 22). 8 Dated this 26th day of September, 2019. 9 Cay) doh Honorable Eileen S. Willett 2 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-