Valdez v. Haynes

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 28, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05322
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

8 SAMUEL VALDEZ

9 Petitioner, Case No. C21-5322-TSZ-SKV

10 v. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF 11 RONALD HAYNES, TIME AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 Respondent.

14 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter comes before 15 the Court at the present time on Petitioner’s motion for an enlargement of time to file a response 16 to Respondent’s answer to Petitioner’s petition, and on Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 17 counsel. Dkt. 10. Respondent has filed a response to Petitioner’s motion in which he indicates 18 that he does not oppose the requested extension of time, but he does oppose Petitioner’s motion 19 for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 11. The Court, having reviewed Petitioner’s motions, 20 Respondent’s response, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 21 22 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 23 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AND DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1 1 (1) Petitioner’s unopposed motion for an enlargement of time to file a response to 2 Respondent’s answer to his federal habeas petition (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. Petitioner is 3 directed to file his response not later than September 16, 2021.

4 (2) Respondent’s answer to Petitioner’s federal habeas petition (Dkt. 8) is RE- 5 NOTED on the Court’s calendar for consideration on September 24, 2021. Respondent shall file 6 any reply brief in support of his answer by that date. 7 (3) Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 11) is DENIED. There is no 8 right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary 9 hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); Rule 8(c) of 10 the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. However, the 11 Court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where 12 the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 13 The record is not yet sufficiently developed for the Court to determine whether an

14 evidentiary hearing will be required, and petitioner has not demonstrated that the interests of 15 justice are best served by appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner asserts that appointment 16 of counsel is warranted because of the complexity of the case, his lack of education, and the lack 17 of adequate law library access due to the pandemic. Dkt. 11 at 2. He also asserts that “he 18 struggles to understand the English language.” Id. The Court notes, however, that Petitioner 19 represented himself throughout his collateral proceedings in the state courts, he litigated a prior 20 habeas action pro se, and he filed the instant petition and supporting documents without the 21 assistance of counsel. Nothing in the record before this Court suggests that Petitioner is unable 22 to litigate this case without counsel. Plaintiff thus fails to demonstrate that the interests of ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 23 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AND DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2 1 judgment warrant appointment of counsel. Counsel will be appointed, as required, should the 2 Court later determine that an evidentiary hearing is necessary. 3 (4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for

4 Respondent, and to the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly. 5 DATED this 28th day of July, 2021. 6 7 A 8 S. KATE VAUGHAN 9 United States Magistrate Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 23 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AND DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 3