Leopold v. Houser

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JAMES LEOPOLD, III,
Petitioner,
vs.
EARL HOUSER, Superintendent, Goose
Creek Correctional Center,
Respondent.
No. 4:21-cv-00002-JKS
ORDER
[Re: Motion at Docket No. 8]
James Leopold, III, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). Docket No. 1. After reviewing the Petition
pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court determined that did not “plainly
appear[] from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The
Court ordered the Respondent to answer the Petition, Docket No. 4, and Respondent complied,
Docket No. 6.
At Docket No. 8, Leopold now renews his request for the appointment of counsel to assist
him in these proceedings. As this Court explained in denying Leopold’s prior request, while this
Court is not unmindful of the plight of unrepresented state prisoners in federal habeas
proceedings, there is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See
Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336-37 (2007) (citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,
-1-
Case 4:21-cv-00002-JKS Document 10 Filed 04/08/21 Page 1 of 2

756-57 (1991)). This Court, however, may under the Criminal Justice Act appoint counsel in this
case if it determines that the interests of justice so require at any point in these proceedings. 28
U.S.C. § 2254(h); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th
Cir. 1983) (“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.”).
In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by
the appointment of counsel at the present time. Importantly, the Court has before it Leopold’s
counseled application for post-conviction relief filed in the Alaska Superior Court, as well as all
counseled briefing from Leopold’s appeal in the Alaska Court of Appeal of the denial of that
application. As the Court noted in its prior Order, Leopold may, but is not required to, file a
reply to the Respondent’s answer by April 14, 2021.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Motion to Appoint Counsel at Docket No.
8 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew of the motion at a later stage of the
proceedings.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 8th day of April, 2021.
s/James K. Singleton, Jr.
JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.
Senior United States District Judge
-2-
Case 4:21-cv-00002-JKS Document 10 Filed 04/08/21 Page 2 of 2