Luster v. United States of America
ORDER denying as moot 7 Motion for Clarification and Discovery; denying 17 Motion to Seal Case; denying 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel; and denying 27 Motion to Expedite Resolution of Case. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 2/27/2017. (NEF and order mailed to plaintiff) (pac)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
BJORN CHRISTIAN LUSTER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
This matter appears before the court on the movant’s motion for clarification and
discovery (civil docket no. 7), filed on April 26, 2016, motion to seal records (civil docket
no. 17), filed on July 11, 2016, motion to appoint counsel (civil docket no. 19), filed on
July 18, 2016, and motion to expedite resolution of the case (civil docket no. 27), filed on
February 13, 2017.
As for the motion for clarification and discovery (civil docket no. 7), the court’s
April 12, 2016 order is clear. Moreover, Mark Anderson ultimately filed an affidavit.
Accordingly, the motion for clarification and discovery (civil docket no. 7) is denied as
Regarding the motion to seal records (civil docket no. 17), there is no basis to seal
the entire record. The movant does not specify what needs to be sealed and merely
threatens to commence litigation if his demands are not met. But, it is clear that many of
the documents that are filed in this case are appropriately maintained as a matter of public
record. Accordingly, the motion to seal records (civil docket no. 17) is denied.
Appointment of counsel is based on multiple factors, including the complexity of
the case, and, although the court does 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 case); Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991) (same); Wiggins v.
Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 1985) (stating 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 does not extend to
persons seeking post conviction relief.” (citing Baker v. United States, 334 F.2d 444, 447
(8th Cir. 1964))). Because a review of the claims that the movant included in his motion
to vacate, set aside or correct sentence, the affidavits of counsel and the resistance
submitted by the government suggest that the movant is not entitled to relief, there is no
reason to appoint an attorney at this time. Accordingly, the movant’s motion to appoint
counsel (civil docket no. 19) is denied.
Lastly, the court deems it appropriate to address this matter in the ordinary course.
This case is fully briefed and is awaiting final disposition. Accordingly, the motion to
expedite resolution of the case (civil docket no. 27) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2017.
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?