Craig v. USA
Filing
4
ORDER denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 3 Unopposed MOTION to Stay pending the final disposition of United States v. Mungro, Fourth Cir. No. 13-4503. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 6/28/2014. (eef)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-323-FDW
(3:07-cr-44-FDW-1)
DONALD RAY CRAIG,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
_______________________________
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel, (Doc. No. 2), to allow the Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina to represent
Petitioner in his pending Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255, and on Petitioner’s Motion to Stay pending final disposition by the Fourth Circuit and the
Supreme Court of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Mungro, No. 13-4503. (Doc.
No. 3).
In § 2255 actions, appointment of counsel is governed by the Rules Governing § 2255
Proceedings, Rules 6(a) and 8(c), which mandate the appointment of counsel where discovery is
necessary or if the matter proceeds to an evidentiary hearing. Id. Moreover, there is no
constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a § 2255 proceeding. Pennsylvania v.
Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). The Court may appoint counsel to a financially eligible
habeas petitioner if justice so requires. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). This Court finds that
Petitioner has not shown that appointment of counsel is appropriate in this case. The Court,
therefore, denies Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel.
-1-
The Court hereby grants Petitioner’s motion to stay pending final disposition of United
States v. Mungro.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
(1) Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, (Doc. No. 2), is DENIED.
(2) Petitioner’s Motion to Stay, (Doc. No. 3), is GRANTED.
-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?