Caril v. State of Washington

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 8 — WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA — 9 — 10 LEON CARIL II, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01735-RSM-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 COUNSEL ROBERT JACKSON, — 13 — Respondent. — 14 — 15 This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge 16 Grady J. Leupold. Currently before the Court is Petitioner Leon Caril II’s Motion to Appoint 17 Counsel. Dkt. 49. Because Petitioner has not shown the appointment of counsel is warranted at 18 this time, his Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , 21 unless (1) counsel is required to prevent a due process violation, (2) an evidentiary hearing is 22 required, or (3) such appointment is necessary for the effective utilization of discovery 23 procedures. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191 , 1196 — 24 — 1 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); United 2 States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952 , 954 3 (9th Cir. 1983); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 6(a) 4 and 8(c). 5 Even where habeas counsel is not required as a matter of right, the Court may appoint 6 counsel for financially eligible petitioners “when it determines ‘that the interests of justice so 7 require.’” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A); see also Dillon v. United 8 States, 307 F.2d 445, 447 (9th Cir. 1962) (in circumstances where appointment of counsel is not 9 mandated, the decision to appoint counsel falls within the “sound discretion of the court”). In 10 deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court evaluates “the likelihood of success on the merits 11 as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of 12 the legal issues involved.” Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954 ; see also Stokes v. Roe, 18 F. App’x 478 , 13 479 (9th Cir. 2001). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Petitioner has filed this Motion on a form Motion for Appointment of Counsel to proceed 16 in the Superior Court of Washington for King County. Dkt. 49. In particular, Petitioner asserts 17 that, based on an attached Affidavit of Indigency (id. at 2), he is “unable to afford an attorney to 18 represent him at trial . . . .” Id. at 1. Petitioner does not describe any circumstances that would 19 entitle him to court-appointed counsel in these federal § 2254 habeas proceedings. See id. 20 Further, these § 2254 proceedings are still in the early stages as Respondent has not yet 21 filed an answer to the Petition, and Petitioner has not demonstrated he is likely to succeed on the 22 merits of his case or that an evidentiary hearing will be necessary. — 23 — — 24 — 1 Finally, Petitioner’s filings in the case thus far have been clear and understandable. As 2 such, the Court does not find his ability to articulate his claims to be so lacking as to warrant the 3 appointment of counsel at this juncture. 4 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not shown the appointment of 5 counsel is required at this time. 6 III. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons above, Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 49) is DENIED 8 without prejudice. — 9 — 10 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2025. — 11 — A — 12 — 13 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 —