Gurule v. USA

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 11/18/21 (alt)

Download PDF
Case 2:21-cv-00344-DN Document 13 Filed 11/18/21 PageID.216 Page 1 of 2 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH THOMAS RAY GURULE, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Case No. 2:21-cv-00344-DN (Criminal No. 2:04-cr-209-PGC-1) District Judge David Nuffer Movant Thomas Ray Gurule seeks the appointment of counsel in this case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Motion”). 1 There is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in § 2255 proceedings, unless an evidentiary hearing is held. 2 Nevertheless, counsel may be appointed when “the interests of justice so require” for a “financially eligible person” seeking relief under § 2255. 3 After review and consideration of Mr. Gurule’s filings, justice does not require the appointment of counsel. Briefing on Mr. Gurule’s § 2255 Motion is now complete. 4 Mr. Gurule has shown an “ability to investigate the facts necessary for [the] issues and to articulate them in a 1 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, docket no. 3, filed June 2, 2021. Paul v. United States, 2006 WL 314563, *1 (D. Utah Feb. 9, 2006); Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts 8(c). 2 3 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Motion for Authorization to File a Second or Successive Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by a Prisoner in Federal Custody (“§ 2255 Motion”), docket no. 1, filed Nov. 27, 2019; United States’ Response to Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, docket no. 5, filed July 14, 2021; Reply to Government’s Motion to Respond to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, docket no. 12, filed Nov. 8, 2021. 4 Case 2:21-cv-00344-DN Document 13 Filed 11/18/21 PageID.217 Page 2 of 2 meaningful fashion.” 5 The issues Mr. Gurule raises are also “straightforward and not so complex as to require counsel’s assistance.” 6 And an evidentiary hearing on the § 2255 Motion will be unnecessary. ORDER THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Gurule’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 7 is DENIED. Signed November 18, 2021. BY THE COURT ________________________________________ David Nuffer United States District Judge United States v. Lewis, No. 97-3135-SAC, 1998 WL 1054227, *3 (D. Kan. Dec. 9, 1998); Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1343 (7th Cir. 1992). 5 6 Lewis, 1998 WL 1054227, *3; Oliver, 961 F.2d at 1343. 7 Docket no. 3, filed June 2, 2021. 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?