Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01194/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01194-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Dale Allen Severance, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Brian D. Kaiser, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-15-01194-PHX-NVW (ESW)

ORDER 

 On October 20, 2015, Petitioner Dale Allen Severance, who is confined in the 

Arizona State Prison Complex-Safford in Safford, Arizona, filed a pro se Amended 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. (Doc. 10). The Court 

ordered Respondents to file an answer or responsive pleading. (Docs. 11, 16). 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

(Doc. 13). Petitioner requests that the Court appoint counsel for Petitioner because (i) 

Petitioner has no income, (ii) Petitioner has “no legal training and lacks sufficient 

knowledge and understanding of subject matter to properly defend and represent 

himself,” and (iii) the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) has denied 

Petitioner “legal aide.” (Id. at 1). 

 “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to 

appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed 

counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 

Case 2:15-cv-01194-NVW Document 20 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when “the 

interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “In deciding whether to 

appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district 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.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “Neither of these considerations is 

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2009). 

 Having considered both elements, Petitioner has not shown that the interests of 

justice require the appointment of counsel in this case. Petitioner has not demonstrated a 

likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in 

litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Petitioner’s filings 

with the Court, as well as the instant motion, indicate that Petitioner remains capable of 

navigating his proceedings and presenting arguments to the Court. Petitioner is in a 

position no different than many pro se prisoner litigants. Should the Court determine that 

an evidentiary hearing in this matter is required or counsel is necessary for the effective 

utilization of discovery procedures, counsel may be appointed. See Rules 6(a) and 8(c), 

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 

13). 

 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2016. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01194-NVW Document 20 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2