Hernandez-Mendoza v. Barr

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE KELVIN HERNANDEZ-MENDOZA, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. C20-1348-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL WILLIAM BARR, et al., 12 Respondent.

13 The Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 7. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in § 2241 habeas actions. The Court may appoint counsel if the “interests of justice so require,” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), after evaluating petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits and petitioner’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygardt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). The Court having reviewed the record and considered both factors, concludes the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel in this case.

20 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. 7, is DENIED.

21 DATED this 26th day of October, 2020.

22 A BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge