Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00512/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00512-0/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

Terry Lyn McCutcheon,

Petitioner,

v. 

Arizona, State of, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00512-PHX-PGR (ESW)

ORDER

Petitioner Terry Lyn McCutcheon, who is confined in the MacDougall 

Correctional Institution in Connecticut, filed a pro se Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 6). The Court ordered Respondents 

to answer. (Doc. 7). Respondents filed their Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus on November 5, 2015. (Doc. 14). Pending before the Court are

Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 17) and “Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Reply to Respondent’s Response to Order to Show Cause” (Doc. 18). The 

Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and grant Petitioner an

extension of time to reply to Respondents’ Limited Answer.

DISCUSSION

1. Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 17)

Petitioner requests that the Court appoint him counsel because (i) the case involves 

complex issues, (ii) Petitioner has no knowledge of the law, (iii) Petitioner is incarcerated 

Case 2:15-cv-00512-PGR Document 19 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 3
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

in Connecticut with no access to Arizona law, and (iv) “[i]t would benefit the Court as 

well as Petitioner logistically” due to the geographical distance between Petitioner and 

the Court. (Doc. 17 at 2).

“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, 

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 motions, indicate that Petitioner remains quite 

capable of navigating his proceedings and presenting cogent 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, Petitioner’s Motion to 

Appoint Counsel will be denied.

- 2 -

Case 2:15-cv-00512-PGR Document 19 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

2. “Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Respondent’s

Response to Order to Show Cause” (Doc. 18)

Petitioner seeks a ninety day extension of time to reply to Respondents’ Limited 

Answer because (i) he is awaiting the results of a prostate biopsy procedure performed on 

December 2, 2015, (ii) he has limited access to one typewriter shared among 120 

prisoners, and (iii) access to the law library has been cancelled five consecutive weeks for 

his cellblock. Petitioner’s reply was due by December 7, 2015. 

Based on the information provided, the Court finds good cause to grant 

Petitioner’s request. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 17). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting “Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Reply to Respondent’s Response to Order to Show Cause.” (Doc. 18). 

Petitioner shall file a reply no later than March 7, 2016. 

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2016. 

- 3 - 

Case 2:15-cv-00512-PGR Document 19 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 3