Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02490/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02490-0/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

Michael D Mott, )

)

 Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) CV 05-2490 PHX SMM (VAM)

)

Dora B. Schriro, et al., ) ORDER

)

 Respondents. )

Pending before the Court is petitioner's second "MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO: Answers to Complaint ..." 

(Doc. 17) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 18).

1. Motion for Extension of Time

Petitioner requests an extension of time, 160 days from the

date respondents submitted their answer, to file a reply. 

Petitioner contends he deserves this time because respondents were

given extensions totaling 160 days to file an answer. (See Doc.

17). This reason is insufficient to justify a further extension,

let alone an extension of 160 days. Petitioner has presented no

justification for such an extension and no further extension will

be allowed to file a reply.

2. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner also seeks appointment of counsel. Petitioner

contends he has no legal training and cites unspecified

interference of prison officials with his legal assistant. (Doc.

18 at p. 1). 

Case 2:05-cv-02490-SMM Document 19 Filed 04/24/06 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 2

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), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 1911 (1987). The Court has

discretion to appoint counsel when "the interests of justice so

require. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). In addition, before

appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding will be appropriate

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." 

Weygandt v. Look 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Duckett v.

Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 750 (n. 8) (9th Cir. 1995). 

Upon review, petitioner has not established entitlement to

appointed counsel. The mere fact petitioner has no legal training

is insufficient and hardly unique. Petitioner fails to specify

what "interference" by prison officials has hampered his ability

to litigate this matter with the help of a "legal assistant." 

Moreover, petitioner has not presented a sufficient likelihood of

success on the merits of his claim. Respondents contend, inter

alia, that his claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 

Under these circumstances, petitioner cannot demonstrate

entitlement to appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2). This claim will be denied without prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's "MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME ..." (Doc. 17) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for

Case 2:05-cv-02490-SMM Document 19 Filed 04/24/06 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 3

Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 18) is denied without prejudice.

 DATED this 24th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02490-SMM Document 19 Filed 04/24/06 Page 3 of 3