Opinion ID: 702959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion for Appointment of Counsel and for Extension of Time

Text: 15 Lutz argues that the district court violated due process by failing to make an express ruling on his motion to appoint counsel or his request for an extension of time to file a reply brief. His argument is not persuasive. 16 Lutz filed a motion for appointment of counsel after receiving the government's response to his Sec. 2255 motion. Alternatively, he requested an extension of time to file a reply brief if his motion for appointment of counsel was denied. 2 Since Lutz sought counsel's aid in preparing and conducting an evidentiary hearing in relation to his Sec. 2255 motion, the district court's denial of his Sec. 2255 motion implicitly rejected his request for appointment of counsel. Such rejection was within the district court's discretion. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (in habeas corpus proceedings, district court has discretion to appoint counsel depending on petitioner's ability to articulate his claim, complexity of legal issues, and likelihood of success on merits); cf. Miles v. Dep't of Army, 881 F.2d 777, 784 (9th Cir. 1989) (in Title VII action, district court abused its discretion by failing to rule on plaintiff's request for counsel before granting government's motion to dismiss complaint). 17 AFFIRMED.