Beard-Hawkins v. USA

Filing 17

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 7/20/2018. (ceh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DELENTHEGIA BEARD-HAWKINS,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 17-cv-1058-DRH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
HERDON, District Judge:

This matter is before the Court on petitioner Delenthegia Beard-Hawkins’
(“petitioner”) Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 16).

The Court DENIES the

motion.
In her three sentence motion for appointment of counsel, petitioner simply
requests the Court appoint a public defender to review her case pursuant to
“Session v. Dimaya (S.CT. 2018), case # 15-1498.” Doc. 16 at 1. 1 She states she
is indigent, making $18.00 per month. Id.
There is no constitutional right to counsel in cases brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. The statute provides that the Court may appoint counsel for an
indigent petitioner, and that the appointment of counsel in such a case is
governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Neither statute creates a right to counsel; rather,
they give a court broad discretion to appoint counsel for a petitioner seeking relief
1

The Court notes that in its June 11, 2018 Order, petitioner was told such legal arguments were
not relevant to the issues in her case. See doc. 15.

1

on their motion attacking sentence.
Appointment of counsel for a § 2255 petitioner is governed by standards
similar to those followed in civil cases. When presented with a request to appoint
counsel in a civil case, the court must make the following inquiries: “(1) has the
indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively
precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the
plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749,
760-61 (7th Cir. 2010), citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir.
2007).
Here, petitioner does not say what steps she has taken, if any, to obtain
counsel on her own.

Accordingly, it does not appear that petitioner made a

reasonable attempt to obtain counsel, as required by Santiago and Pruitt. Given
the failure of this first step, it is unnecessary to make inquiry under step two,
however, the Court notes that petitioner’s pleadings and motions – of which there
are many – are literate and demonstrate petitioner’s ability to understand and
litigate her case.
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (doc. 16) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.07.20
15:33:09 -05'00'
United States District Judge

2