Trujillo v. Santistevan

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO MIGUEL TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. No. CV 19-730 JB/CG DWAYNE SANTIESTEVAN, WARDEN, and HECTOR BALDERAS, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Respondents.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (the “Motion”), (Doc. 4), filed August 9, 2019. The Court, having reviewed the Motion and the relevant law, finds the Motion shall be DENIED. Petitioner is a prisoner in the custody of the State of New Mexico and seeks habeas corpus review of his New Mexico conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. There is no right to appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Instead, the decision whether to request assistance of counsel rests in the sound discretion of the Court. See, e.g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991); Swazo v. Wyoming Dep't of Corr. State Penitentiary Warden, 23 F.3d 332, 333 (10th Cir. 1994). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider the merits of the litigant's claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the litigant's ability to investigate the facts and to present his claims. Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004). The Court has reviewed the Motion and subsequent filings in light of the foregoing factors. Petitioner appears to understand the issues in the case and to be representing himself in a capable manner. See Lucero v. Gunter, 52 F.3d 874, 878 (10th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner's Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. THE HONORABLE CARMEN E. GARZA CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE