Gutierrez v. Flannican

Full title: Rogelio Benavides Gutierrez, Petitioner, v. Flannican, et al., Respondents

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Dec 7, 2005

No. CIV 05-2981-PHX-DGC (DKD) (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2005)

Opinion

No. CIV 05-2981-PHX-DGC (DKD).

December 7, 2005

ORDER

DAVID DUNCAN, Magistrate Judge

Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #8 and 9). Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9^th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9^th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9^th 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 (9^th 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 (9^th Cir. 1983). Petitioner has not shown that he is more likely to succeed on the merits of his claims than any other habeas petitioner before this Court, nor has he shown that his claims are complex. Therefore, the Motions for appointment of counsel will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #8) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #9) is denied.