Bastian v. United States of America
Filing
24
ORDER denying 12 Pro Se Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 14 Pro Se Motion to Expand the Record; denying 15 Pro Se Motion to Reconsider Docket Numbers 112, 113 and 114 in CR08-1327. Because the briefing in this matter is complete, any supplement(s) should be filed by no later than 12/17/2012. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 12/03/2012 (copy w/NEF mailed to Plt). (skm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION
CASEY BASTIAN,
Movant,
No. C11-1036
vs.
ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
____________________
The matter is before the court pursuant to Casey Bastian’s (“the movant”) motion
to appoint counsel (docket no. 12), motion to expand the record of the criminal case (docket
no. 14) and motion to reconsider previously filed discovery motions in the movant’s
criminal case (docket no. 15), which the movant filed on December 13, 2011.
Appointment of counsel is based on multiple factors, including the complexity of the
case, and, although the court may appoint attorneys in actions that arise under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, it is not required to appoint an attorney. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th
Cir. 1996) (setting forth factors to be considered for appointment of counsel in civil cases);
Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991) (same); Wiggins v. Sargent, 753
F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 1985) (stating that an indigent litigant enjoys neither a statutory nor
a constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case); Day v. United States, 428
F.2d 1193, 1195 (8th Cir. 1970) (“The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend
to persons seeking post conviction relief.” (citing Baker v. United States, 334 F.2d 444,
447 (8th Cir. 1964))). Given the record, the court concludes that appointment of counsel
is not warranted, especially considering that the movant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded
guilty. Accordingly, the movant’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 12) is
denied.
Previously, the court permitted the movant to submit any supplementary documents
that he obtained and deemed relevant to his claims. The court, however, did not permit the
movant to conduct or obtain discovery and denied his request to have his detention hearing
and sentencing hearing transcribed. Having reviewed the movant’s claims in light of the
record, the court stands by its previous decision. Because good cause is lacking, discovery
is not warranted. In addition, the court seriously doubts whether additional filings or
documents from the movant would clarify any of his claims. Therefore, the movant’s
motion to expand the record of the criminal case (docket no. 14) and motion to reconsider
previously filed discovery motions in the movant’s criminal case (docket no. 15) are denied.
The court, however, reminds the movant that nothing prevents him from supplementing the
record with relevant documents. Because the briefing in this matter is complete, any
supplement(s) should be filed by no later than December 17, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of December, 2012.
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?