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)

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