Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02251/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02251-2/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 

Denijal Hrbenic, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02251-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file 

objections to the Report and Recommendation and Motion to Appoint counsel. The 

Court will first address the motion to appoint counsel. 

 Petitioner seeks counsel due to both a language barrier and a claimed lack of 

knowledge of the American legal system. Regarding the language barrier, Petitioner’s 

failure to take advantage of the interpreter services offered by Respondents does not 

justify appointment of counsel. See Order at Doc. 33. 

 Additionally, prisoners applying for habeas 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, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per 

curiam). This Court has discretion to appoint counsel when “the interests of justice so 

require.” Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 

U.S. 979 (1991) (quoting 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B)). “In deciding whether to appoint 

Case 2:14-cv-02251-JAT Document 36 Filed 11/16/16 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 

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). 

 First, because the Report and Recommendation recommends that the Petition be 

denied and dismissed, the Court does not find a likelihood of success on the merits. 

Second, Petitioner cannot refuse to consult an interpreter and then claim he cannot 

present his claims pro se. Thus, Petitioner has failed to show he should receive appointed 

counsel. Therefore, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel (part of Doc. 35) is denied. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for extension of time (part of Doc. 

35) is granted to the limited extent that Petitioner’s objections to the Report and 

Recommendation are due by December 2, 2016. 

 Dated this 15th day of November, 2016. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-02251-JAT Document 36 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 2