From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. O'Donnell

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
May 3, 2023
2:23-CV-424-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. May. 3, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-CV-424-BHS-DWC

05-03-2023

TIMOTHY DESHAWN HARRIS, JR., Petitioner, v. NICOLE MORRISEY O'DONNELL, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL

DAVID W. CHRISTEL, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending in this action is Petitioner Timothy Deshawn Harris, Jr.'s Request for an Attorney. Dkt. 7.

There is no right appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required or such appointment is necessary for the effective utilization of discovery procedures. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). The Court may appoint counsel “at any stage of the case if the interest of justice so require.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the 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.” Id.

Here, the Court does not find good cause for granting leave to conduct discovery; thus, counsel is not necessary to effectively utilize discovery. Further, the Court has not determined an evidentiary hearing is required. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c). Moreover, Petitioner effectively articulated his grounds for relief raised in the Petition, the grounds are not factually or legally complex, and Petitioner has not shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of this case. See Dkt. 1-1. Thus, Petitioner has not shown the interests of justice require the Court to appoint counsel at this time.

As Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate, the request for counsel is denied without prejudice.


Summaries of

Harris v. O'Donnell

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
May 3, 2023
2:23-CV-424-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. May. 3, 2023)
Case details for

Harris v. O'Donnell

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY DESHAWN HARRIS, JR., Petitioner, v. NICOLE MORRISEY O'DONNELL…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: May 3, 2023

Citations

2:23-CV-424-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. May. 3, 2023)