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
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?