Valdiglesias-Lavalle v. Headley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 VANESSA DUXANE VALDIGLESIAS- LAVALLE, CASE NO. 2:24-CV-2114-DGE-DWC Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. COUNSEL 13 CHARLOTTE HEADLEY, 14 Respondent.

15 This federal habeas action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge David W.

16 Christel. Currently before the Court is Petitioner Vanessa Duxane Valdiglesias-Lavalle’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Dkt. 11.

18 There is no right appointed counsel in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required. 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 21 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 (“Habeas Rules”), Rules 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. 4 Here, the Court cannot evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as Petitioner has not filed a federal habeas petition complying with the Habeas Rules. See Dkts. 7, 12. Thus, the Petitioner has failed at this time to meet the burden of showing that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel.

8 As Petitioner has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate, the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 11) is denied without prejudice.

10 Dated this 25th day of March, 2025.

A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge