Gordon v. Hodge
Filing
20
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 09/24/2013. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 19 is DENIED. Further, the Court sua sponte EXTENDS Petitioner's deadline to file his response to the pending Motion to Dismiss to October 9, 2013. See Full Written Order. (cc:plf at Lawrence CC)(JS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 24 September, 2013 12:35:21 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
JAMES GORDON,
Petitioner,
v.
MARC HODGE, Warden, Lawrence
Correctional Center,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-cv-1003
ORDER & OPINION
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion of Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 19).
A § 2255 litigant is not entitled to a court-appointed attorney. Oliver v. United
States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1343 (7th Cir. 1992). However, the Court may appoint
counsel to represent an indigent litigant pursuing a § 2255 motion in some
circumstances. United States v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887, 888 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)). Before the Court will appoint counsel, the litigant must
first show that he made a reasonable attempt to acquire counsel without court
intervention. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). If the litigant
has made the proper attempt, the Court considers whether, “given the difficulty of
the case,” he appears able to litigate it himself, and, if not, whether appointed
counsel would be “reasonably likely to alter the outcome.” Id. at 655-56, 660.
Petitioner has not made the threshold showing of an attempt to secure
counsel without court intervention, and therefore will not be appointed an attorney.
Even if Petitioner had made the requisite attempt, he likely still is not entitled to
appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner adequately prepared his § 2255
Motion, and he appears competent to litigate his relatively straightforward claims.
The only reason Petitioner gives for needing counsel is “[due] to inadequate access
to study within Lawrence [Correctional Center] Law library.” (Doc. 19 at 1). He
provides no details about this “inadequate access.” Even if his time to use the
library is limited, that does not require appointment of counsel, as Petitioner may
request extensions of time if necessary to complete his submissions.1 For all these
reasons, Petitioner’s request for appointed counsel is denied.
The Court may additionally appoint counsel in a § 2255 case if discovery is
required, and must appoint counsel if an evidentiary hearing is set. See Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, R. 6, 8.
Neither of these is applicable at this time; the Court will revisit the issue of
appointment of counsel under these provisions if it later becomes necessary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (Doc. 19) is DENIED. Further, the Court sua sponte EXTENDS Petitioner’s
deadline to file his response to the pending Motion to Dismiss to October 9, 2013.
Entered this 24th day of September, 2013.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
If Petitioner is being denied access to a law library completely, that would present
a more serious problem, but there is no indication that is the case.
1
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?