GRIFFIN-COATUM v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying without prejudice 16 MOTION to Appoint Pro Bono; granting 17 and 18 motion for an extension of time to file an amended motion to vacate sentence. (N/M - copy of order forwarded via regular US mail). Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 1/13/2023. (lag, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SHAON GRIFFIN-COATUM,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 17-9010 (CCC)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

CECCHI, District Judge.
Petitioner Shaon Griffin-Coatum, an inmate at FCI Berlin, has filed three documents
which, taken together, the Court construes as: (1) a motion for an extension of time to file an
amended motion to vacate his sentence and (2) a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos.
16–18. By way of background, this Court screened Griffin-Coatum’s most recent amended motion
to vacate, dismissed all but one of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and permitted
Griffin-Coatum to amend the motion to cure the defects identified in the order. ECF No. 5. GriffinCoatum requested, and the Court granted, several extensions of time to file a second amended
petition. ECF Nos. 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15. The Court found good cause to grant these requests because,
among other things, Griffin-Coatum informed the Court that he was awaiting certain documents
and had limited library access. ECF Nos. 8, 12, 15.
Griffin-Coatum never filed an amended motion; instead, he moved for appointment of
counsel and to stay the deadline for filing an amended petition until counsel is appointed. ECF
Nos. 16, 18. He argues that due to his ongoing limited access to the law library, a series of COVIDrelated lockdowns, and his having contracted the COVID-19 virus, he is unable to research and

prepare an amended motion. ECF No. 17, 23. For the reasons below, the Court denies GriffinCoatum’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16) and grants his motion for an extension
of time to file an amended motion to vacate his sentence.
Generally, a habeas petitioner has no constitutional or statutory right to appointment of
counsel. See Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991), superseded by statute on other
grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, courts may appoint counsel to habeas petitioners if they are
“financially eligible” and if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The
Third Circuit has provided the following guidance:
[T]he district court must first decide if the petitioner has presented a nonfrivolous
claim and if the appointment of counsel will benefit the petitioner and the court.
Factors influencing a court’s decision include the complexity of the factual and
legal issues in the case, as well as the pro se petitioner’s ability to investigate facts
and present claims. Courts have held, for example, that there was no abuse of a
district court’s discretion in failing to appoint counsel when no evidentiary hearing
was required and the issues in the case had been narrowed, or the issues were
straightforward and capable of resolution on the record or the petitioner had a good
understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his
contentions.
Reese, 946 F.2d at 263–64 (citations and quotations omitted).
Here, without reaching the merits of Griffin-Coatum’s claim, the Court observes that the
issues presented are not particularly complex. He alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to file a notice of appeal despite Griffin-Coatum’s request that he do so. ECF No. 4. This
is a straightforward claim with supporting facts within Griffin-Coatum’s knowledge, and he filed
a detailed and coherent memorandum of law containing the factual basis and supporting law. ECF
No. 1-2. As to the remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims (which the Court dismissed
without prejudice (Grounds I and II)),1 the Court’s June 2018 order addressed the pleading

1

The Court dismissed Count III with prejudice. ECF No. 5 at 4.

2

deficiencies and gave Griffin-Coatum an opportunity to cure. ECF No. 5. Accordingly, GriffinCoatum’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.
As to Griffin-Coatum’s request for an extension of time to file a second amended motion
to vacate his sentence, given his limited access to the law library and health issues, the Court finds
good cause to grant him an extension. Griffin-Coatum shall file his amended motion to vacate his
sentence within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. Should he fail to do so, the Court will
order the Government to respond to the remaining claim and this matter will proceed on that claim
only.
IT IS THEREFORE on this 13th day of January, 2023,
ORDERED that Griffin-Coatum’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16) is
denied without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Griffin-Coatum’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended
motion to vacate his sentence (ECF Nos. 17, 18) is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Griffin-Coatum shall file his amended motion to vacate his sentence
within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that the failure of Griffin-Coatum to file his amendment within that time shall
result in this matter proceeding solely on Griffin-Coatum’s one remaining claim from his first
amended motion to vacate his sentence; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Griffin-Coatum
by regular U.S. mail.

s/ Claire C. Cecchi
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.

3