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)

Download PDF
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

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?