Collins v. Vidal

Filing 8

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice to renewal after the petitioner has made a showing of financial eligibility for CJA counsel and the respondent has filed a legal memorandum in opposition to the petition. (PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MICHAEL COLLINS,
Petitioner,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
OSVALDO VIDAL,
Respondent.

Civil Action No.
15-14040-PBS

ORDER
December 16, 2015
Saris, C.J.
Michael Collins, who filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, has moved for the
counsel.

appointment of

For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the

motion without prejudice.
Collins does not have a constitutional right to counsel in a
habeas proceeding.

See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 756-57

(1991); United States v. Saccoccia, 564 F.3d 502, 506 n.3 (1st
Cir. 2009). Under the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A, the Court may appoint counsel for

a “financially

eligible” habeas petitioner if “the interests of justice so
require.”

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2).

In determining whether the

interests of justice require the appointment of counsel, the
court must examine the totality of the circumstances, focusing on
whether the petitioner has presented a colorable claim, the
complexity of the legal issues, the intricacy of any factual
issues, and the petitioner’s ability to represent himself.

See

United States v. Guadalupe-Quinones, 65 Fed. Appx. 329, 333 (1st
Cir. 2003); Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994).

In addition, if the Court decides to conduct an evidentiary
hearing on the petition, the interests of justice will require
appointment of counsel.

See Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“If an
evidentiary hearing is warranted, the judge must appoint an
attorney to represent a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel
appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.”).
The appointment of counsel would be premature at this time.
The Court does not have any information concerning the
petitioner’s financial status and thus cannot determine whether
he is financially eligible for the appointment of CJA counsel.
Moreover, the Court cannot yet determine whether the interests of
justice require the appointment of counsel.

The petition has not

been served pending resolution of the filing fee.

In the absence

of a substantive response from the respondent, the Court’s
evaluation of the strength of the petitioner’s claims would be
incomplete.
Therefore, the motion for appointment of counsel (#2) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal after the petitioner has made
a showing of financial eligibility for CJA counsel and the
respondent has filed a legal memorandum in opposition to the
petition.

SO ORDERED.
12/16/2015
DATE

/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
CHIEF, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2