Kalac v. United States of America

Filing 11

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 10 Second Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

JOSEPH R. KALAC,

11
Petitioner,

12
13

CASE NO. C17-1090 RAJ
ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

14

Respondent.

15
16
This matter comes before the Court on Joseph Kalac’s Second Motion to Appoint
17
Counsel. Dkt. # 10. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a post-conviction §
18
2255 proceeding. Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir.1995). Under
19
the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, if a judge
20
determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, “the judge must appoint an attorney
21
for a moving party who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.”
22
See Rule 8(c). Without this determination, appointing counsel is purely a discretionary
23
matter. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (stating that a federal court “may” appoint
24
counsel if “the interests of justice so require[.]”).
25
The Court already found that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. Mr. Kalac
26
does not present any new information or argument to the contrary in his newest motion.
27

ORDER- 1

1 If circumstances change such that the Court finds an evidentiary hearing necessary, then
2 the Court will appoint counsel for petitioner. The Court continues to find no other
3 compelling justification for appointing counsel at this time.
4

Dated this 12th day of October, 2017.

5

A

6
7

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER- 2