Kalac v. United States of America

Filing 9

ORDER denying Petitioner's 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH) (cc: Petitioner via U.S. 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 Motion to Appoint
17
Counsel. Dkt. # 5. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a post-conviction § 2255
18
proceeding. Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir.1995). Under the
19
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 does not find an evidentiary hearing necessary. If circumstances
26
change such that the Court finds an evidentiary hearing necessary, then the Court will
27

ORDER- 1

1 appoint counsel for petitioner. The Court finds no other compelling justification for
2 appointing counsel at this time.
3

Dated this 19th day of September, 2017.

4

A

5
6

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER- 2