Wang v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 9 Petitioner, Case No. C21-1353-JHC-SKV 10 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF 12 Respondent. 13

14 This is a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter comes 15 before the Court on Petitioner’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel. Dkts. 20 & 21. The 16 Court, having reviewed Petitioner’s motions, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and 17 ORDERS as follows: 18 (1) Petitioner’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel, Dkts. 20 & 21, are DENIED. 19 There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an 20 evidentiary hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); 21 Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing 22 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court may, however, exercise its 23 1 discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the “interests of justice so 2 require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 3 At this juncture, the record is not sufficiently developed for the Court to determine 4 whether an evidentiary hearing will be required, and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the

5 interests of justice are best served by appointment of counsel. Counsel will be appointed, as 6 required, should the Court later determine that an evidentiary hearing is necessary. 7 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the 8 Honorable John H. Chun. 9 Dated this 6th day of April, 2023. 10 A United States Magistrate Judge 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23