DIARRASSOUBA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 14

OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 6/3/2013. (gxh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MORY DIARRASSOUBA,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2257 (MLC)
O P I N I O N

MORY DIARRASSOUBA (“Petitioner”), who is pro se, seeks to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ (“Section”) 2255 (“2255 Motion”).
Mot.)

(See dkt. entry no. 1, 2255

The underlying criminal case before this Court was United

States v. Diarrassouba, Criminal No. 11-12 (MLC).
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner moves pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A for the
appointment of counsel here, arguing that he lacks the ability to
present his arguments effectively.
Counsel Mot. at 1.)

(See dkt. entry no. 11,

There is no constitutional right to counsel

for pro se litigants in civil cases in general, or in proceedings
brought pursuant to Section 2255 in particular.

See Coleman v.

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d
454, 456 (3d Cir. 1997).

In addition, there is no statutory

right to counsel for pro se litigants in proceedings brought
pursuant to Section 2255.

See Parham, 126 F.3d at 457.

However,

this Court possesses the discretion to determine whether counsel
should be appointed here.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Tabron

v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153-54 (3d Cir. 1993).
The record does not support the appointment of counsel at
this juncture.

Petitioner has demonstrated that he is able to

articulate his claims and represent himself, based upon the
clarity of the arguments that he has presented in the 2255 Motion
without the assistance of counsel.

(See, e.g., dkt. entry no. 1,

Petitioner Mem. of Law at 3-8 (discussing Padilla v. Kentucky,
559 U.S. 356 (2010); ineffective assistance of counsel; and
collateral consequences).)

This Court finds that Petitioner

fully comprehends the issues here, which are neither factually
nor legally complex.

Thus, a denial of the appointment of

counsel will not create any likelihood that Petitioner will incur
substantial prejudice.

Petitioner may move again for appointment

of counsel at any time, if appropriate.

See Tabron, 6 F.3d at

156.
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
This Court is concerned that a recently-issued opinion by
United States Supreme Court is relevant to the outcome of the
2255 Motion.
(2013).

See Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103

Thus, this Court intends to direct the parties to file

supplemental briefing on whether Chaidez offers any guidance as
to the disposition of the 2255 Motion.

2

In the interests of

justice, this Court intends to permit Petitioner to respond
first.
THIS COURT will issue an appropriate order.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:

June 3, 2013

3