Giles v. White

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE DANNY GILES, 10 Petitioner, Case No. C18-0629-RAJ-MAT 11 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S DAN WHITE, APPLICATION FOR COURT- APPOINTED COUNSEL 13 Respondent.

15 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter comes before the Court at the present time on petitioner’s application for court-appointed counsel. The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s motion, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 19 (1) Petitioner’s motion for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. 14) is DENIED. There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 22 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); and, Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. However, the Court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S for a financially eligible individual where the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

2 The record is not yet sufficiently developed for the Court to determine whether an evidentiary hearing will be required, and petitioner has not demonstrated that the interests of justice are best served by appointment of counsel at this time. Counsel will be appointed, as required, should the Court later determine that an evidentiary hearing is necessary.

6 (2) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent, and to the Honorable Richard A. Jones.

8 DATED this 22nd day of October, 2019.

A Mary Alice Theiler 11 United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S