Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02820/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02820-0/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

John Anthony Rustin,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-02820-PHX-DLR (ESW)

ORDER 

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

Habeas Proceeding in the Interest of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B))” (Doc. 11).

“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).

Case 2:19-cv-02820-DLR Document 12 Filed 10/21/19 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

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 indicate that Petitioner is capable of navigating this proceeding 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,

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel in 

Habeas Proceeding in the Interest of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B))” (Doc. 11).

Dated this 18th day of October, 2019.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-02820-DLR Document 12 Filed 10/21/19 Page 2 of 2