Opinion
CV-22-08192-PCT-JAT
08-29-2024
Gina Jeannette Dumont, Petitioner, v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On August 6, 2024, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 49). Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the R&R and a motion to appoint counsel.
Generally, habeas petitioners are not entitled to appointed counsel. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996 (1966). The Court has discretion to appoint counsel when a judge “determines that the interests of justice so require.” Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 979 (1991) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
Here, the R&R recommends that relief be denied. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Further, Petitioner has articulated her claims pro se without difficulty. Thus, the request for appointed counsel will be denied.
The Court will grant Petitioner an extension of time to file her objections. However, Petitioner's claimed need for a “lengthy” objection because she has much to attend to because she is no longer in custody is not availing. Petitioner will need to dedicate time to this matter within the time limits set forth herein.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 50) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file objections (Doc. 51) is granted to the limited extent that Petitioner's objections to the R&R are due by October 3, 2024.