From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hrbenic v. Ryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nov 15, 2016
No. CV-14-02251-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2016)

Opinion

No. CV-14-02251-PHX-JAT

11-15-2016

Denijal Hrbenic, Petitioner, v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.


ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation and Motion to Appoint counsel. The Court will first address the motion to appoint counsel.

Petitioner seeks counsel due to both a language barrier and a claimed lack of knowledge of the American legal system. Regarding the language barrier, Petitioner's failure to take advantage of the interpreter services offered by Respondents does not justify appointment of counsel. See Order at Doc. 33.

Additionally, prisoners applying for habeas 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 (9th cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam). This Court has discretion to appoint counsel when "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).

First, because the Report and Recommendation recommends that the Petition be denied and dismissed, the Court does not find a likelihood of success on the merits. Second, Petitioner cannot refuse to consult an interpreter and then claim he cannot present his claims pro se. Thus, Petitioner has failed to show he should receive appointed counsel. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel (part of Doc. 35) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for extension of time (part of Doc. 35) is granted to the limited extent that Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation are due by December 2, 2016.

Dated this 15th day of November, 2016.

/s/ _________

James A. Teilborg

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Hrbenic v. Ryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nov 15, 2016
No. CV-14-02251-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2016)
Case details for

Hrbenic v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:Denijal Hrbenic, Petitioner, v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Nov 15, 2016

Citations

No. CV-14-02251-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2016)