From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hahn v. Sinclair

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Aug 28, 2013
No. C13-5263 RBL/KLS (W.D. Wash. Aug. 28, 2013)

Opinion

No. C13-5263 RBL/KLS

08-28-2013

AARON HAHN, Petitioner, v. STEVE SINCLAIR, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

Before the Court is Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 21. Respondent opposes the motion. ECF No. 22. Petitioner's motion is premature and will be denied.

BACKGROUND

On April 4, 2013, Petitioner Aaron Hahn, a Washington State prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 13. On August 1, 2013, the Court directed Respondent to file an answer to the petition within 45 days. ECF No. 14. Mr. Hahn now files a motion for appointment of counsel to assist him in the habeas proceeding. ECF No. 21.

DISCUSSION

There is no right to the appointment of counsel in a non-capital case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or unless such appointment is necessary for the effective use of discovery procedures. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.3d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 6(a) and 8(c). The Court has discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A) to appoint counsel "at any stage of the case if the interests of justice so require." Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954.

Respondent has not yet filed an answer and the state-court record, so it is premature to decide at this point whether Mr. Hahn is or is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing in his case, and it is equally premature to decide at this point whether there will be occasion for him to use the discovery process. If the Court later determines an evidentiary hearing is necessary, the Court will revisit this issue. Therefore, Petitioner's motion will be denied without prejudice to his ability to renew the motion in the event the Court orders an evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22) is denied without prejudice.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.

______________________

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Hahn v. Sinclair

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Aug 28, 2013
No. C13-5263 RBL/KLS (W.D. Wash. Aug. 28, 2013)
Case details for

Hahn v. Sinclair

Case Details

Full title:AARON HAHN, Petitioner, v. STEVE SINCLAIR, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Aug 28, 2013

Citations

No. C13-5263 RBL/KLS (W.D. Wash. Aug. 28, 2013)