Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01273/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01273-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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 

Gabriel Flores-Delgado, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Loretta Lynch, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-01273-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 On June 5, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas in California. 

Ultimately, on July 8, 2015, Petitioner’s Petition was transferred to Arizona. On 

December 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a 

Report and Recommendation recommending that Petitioner’s Petition be denied by this 

Court. 

 Petitioner has filed two motions for extensions of time to file objections to the 

Report and Recommendation. Embedded in both of those motions is a request for 

appointment of counsel. 

AThere is no constitutional right to counsel on habeas.@ Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 

F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief 

are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances indicate that appointed 

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

1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970); Eskridge v. 

Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). 

Case 2:15-cv-01273-JAT Document 33 Filed 01/06/16 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 

 The Court has discretion to appoint counsel when a magistrate or the district court 

Adetermines that the interests of justice so require.@ Terronova v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 

1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B)). AIn 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). 

 In this case, the Court finds Petitioner can and has articulated his claims well pro 

se. Further, given that the Magistrate Judge has already recommended that Petitioner’s 

Petition be denied, the Court does not find a high likelihood of success on the merits. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that to the extent the motions for extension of time (Docs. 31 

and 32) seek an extension of time to file objections, they are granted. Petitioner shall file 

his objections to the Report and Recommendation by February 1, 2016. To the extent the 

motions seek appointment of counsel, they are denied. 

 Dated this 6th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01273-JAT Document 33 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 2