Chisom v. Morgan

Full title: FRED CHISOM, Petitioner, v. RICHARD MORGAN, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle

Date published: Jan 17, 2003

Case No. C02-2048R (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2003)

Opinion

Case No. C02-2048R

January 17, 2003

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; STRIKING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DENY EXTENSION; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, United States Magistrate Judge

Petitioner is a state prisoner who has filed pro se an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #12) and a "motion to deny extension for the state." (Dkt. #11). The court, having considered petitioner's motions, and the files and records herein, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Although the court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the "interests of justice so require" under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, petitioner fails to demonstrate that the interests of justice would be best served by appointment of counsel in this matter. If the Court later orders an evidentiary hearing, the court will appoint counsel, assuming petitioner qualifies as indigent.

(2) The Clerk shall STRIKE petitioner's motion to deny an extension of time to the state (Dkt. #11). The state has not filed a motion seeking an extension; therefore, there is no need for petitioner to oppose such a motion.

(3) The court notes that on November 13, 2002, it issued an Order directing respondent to file and serve an Answer within 45 days of receipt of the petition and supporting documents. (Dkt. 48). As of the date of this Order, respondent has not filed an Answer nor sought an extension of time in which to do so. Consequently, within 21 days of the date of this Order, respondent shall SHOW CAUSE why relief should not be granted to petitioner.

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent, and to the Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein. In addition, the Clerk shall forward a copy of the court's previous Order (Dkt. #8) to counsel for respondent.