Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01270/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01270-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Michael Trollope, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Terry L. Stewart, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 99-1270-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Thomas Trollope’s Motions to Appoint

Counsel and to Reconsider, as well as his Petition for Habeas Corpus. Magistrate Judge

Mark Aspey has written a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) regarding the habeas

petition and motion to reconsider, recommending denial of both, to which Petitioner timely

filed objections. For the reasons stated herein, the motions and habeas petition will be

denied. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner plead no contest to two counts of child molestation and one count of

attempted sexual abuse. He was sentenced to 22 years imprisonment and lifetime probation

for the child molestation counts and 18 years imprisonment for attempted sexual abuse, to

be served consecutively. The R&Rs set forth the background of this case, and neither party

objected to that background. Thus, the Court adopts that background as an accurate recital.

Case 2:99-cv-01270-ROS Document 170 Filed 06/02/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because objections

were filed, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations de novo.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003). 

ANALYSIS

I. Motion to Appoint Counsel

The Court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever it

determines that “the interests of justice so require” and such person is “financially unable to

obtain representation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h). The

decision to appoint counsel is within its discretion. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196

(9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Petitioner has presented his claims adequately, and the issues are not particularly

complex. See Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (denial of appointment

of counsel within discretion of district court where petitioner clearly presented issues in

petition and accompanying memorandum). Moreover, he does not assert that he unable to

adequately advocate his cause, merely that the counsel assigned to him for his appeal to the

Ninth Circuit is familiar with the case. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.

1997) (concluding that where the “[a]ppellant [has not] show[n] that because of the

complexity of the claims he was unable to articulate his positions[,]” the district court does

not abuse its discretion in denying the request for appointment of counsel). 

Therefore, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel.

II. Motion to Reconsider

Petitioner’s motion to reconsider has been construed as a renewed motion to amend

his petition. (Doc. 164). After a responsive pleading is served, a party may only amend its

petition for habeas corpus by written consent of the adverse party or by leave of court. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). To determine whether to permit an amendment, courts consider: “(1)

Case 2:99-cv-01270-ROS Document 170 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 4
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 -

bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and

(5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375

F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). Futility of amendment alone can justify the denial of a motion

for leave to amend. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir.1995). 

The Magistrate Judge recommend denial of Petitioner’s renewed motion to amend on

the grounds of futility of amendment. The Court agrees that the amendment is futile. 

III. Petition for Habeas Corpus

Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to habeas relief based on his claim of newly

discovered evidence. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a

federal court “shall not” grant habeas relief with respect to “any claim that was adjudicated

on the merits in State court proceedings” unless the State court decision (1) “was contrary

to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined

by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412–413 (2000). 

Having reviewed the issue de novo, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the

state court’s decision was not clearly contrary to established federal law nor an unreasonable

application of the law to the facts. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motions to Appoint Counsel (Docs. 157, 160) are

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R regarding the Motion to Reconsider

(Doc. 165) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 158) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R regarding the Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 159)

is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is

DENIED.

Case 2:99-cv-01270-ROS Document 170 Filed 06/02/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be terminated.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2008.

Case 2:99-cv-01270-ROS Document 170 Filed 06/02/08 Page 4 of 4