Hosino v. Garrett

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Rodney Hosino, Case No. 2:21-cv-02234-GMN-VCF 7 Petitioner v. Order Tim Garrett, et al., 9 Respondents 11 In this habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner, Rodney Hosino, filed a motion for appointment of counsel with his habeas petition that the court overlooked when it screened the petition. ECF Nos. 1-4, 6. For reasons that follow, the court denies the motion.

14 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.).

18 However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 21 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970). Hosino’s petition presents the grounds on which he challenges his state criminal proceeding in a reasonably clear manner, and the legal issues do not appear to be particularly complex. Thus, appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-4) is DENIED.

5 Dated: October 21, 2022 6 _________________________________ U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro