United States District Court, D. Arizona
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's "Objection to Magistrate Duncan's Order (10/27/14) and Motion for Reconsideration Complaint Request for Investigation." The Court overrules Petitioner's objection.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as a pro se litigant. (Doc. 29). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a multitude of motions. The motions at issue include a motion for ruling on the evidence in the record, (Doc. 73), a motion for an order for Respondent to produce proof of subject matter jurisdiction, (Doc. 76), a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 78), a motion for certification of Arizona statutes as valid constitutional state laws, (Doc. 80), three motions for correction of error, (Docs. 87, 110, 116), three motions for an order to have Respondents produce the entire record, (Docs. 89, 91, 115), a motion to appoint counsel, (Doc. 96), two motions for an evidentiary hearing, (Docs. 107, 113), a motion for ruling without subject matter jurisdiction being proved, (Doc. 108), a motion to disqualify the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. 109), and two motions requesting leave to file excess pages, (Docs. 94, 98). On October 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an order, (Doc. 20), granting Petitioner's motions requesting leave to file excess pages, (Docs. 94, 98), and denying Petitioner's other motions (Docs. 73, 76, 78, 80, 87, 89, 91, 96, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116). Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's order denying these motions.
A. Appealing a magistrate judge's order
Within 10 days after being served with a copy of [a] magistrate judge's order, a party may serve and file objections to the order.... The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Here, Plaintiff seeks to overturn the Magistrate Judge's order, (Doc. 120). (Doc. 123).
1. Motion to appoint counsel
The Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 120 at 1-2). The Magistrate Judge reasoned that:
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, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996 (1966). The Court has discretion to appoint counsel when a judge "determines that 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 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). Qualls has not shown that he is more likely to succeed on the merits of his claims than any other habeas petitioner before this Court, nor has he shown that his claims are complex.
(Doc. 120 at 1-2).
Petitioner requests the Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge arguing that the failure to appoint counsel has caused Petitioner's "grounds and documents not to be presented in court." (Doc. 123 at 5). Petitioner further contends that he has produced exhibits demonstrating the complexity of his claims and his need for appointed counsel. ( Id. at 6). Petitioner asserts that the Magistrate Judge "did not even look at this evidence" and failed "to personally review [his] petition, evidence, exhibits and affidavits...." ( Id. ) However, Petitioner does not present any evidence supporting his assertion. Moreover, the undersigned has previously denied one of Petitioner's motions for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 67 at 3). For these ...