Plante v. United States of America
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 56 MOTION to amend his 2255 motion with the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; the United States is hereby Ordered to file a supplemental response to the 2255 motion, specifically addressing the additional claims raised; denying 57 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 8/8/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (skm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
JOSHUA DWAYNE PLANTE,
Movant,
v.
Case No. 3:12-cv-01186
(Criminal Case No: 3:11-cr-00059-01)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion to File for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Pursuant to Motion (28 U.S.C. § 2255) (ECF No. 56) and a Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (ECF No. 57). Given that the Motion to File for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
was submitted to the Court less than two months after Movant’s initial motion to vacate
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and prior to intensive judicial review, the Court shall construe
ECF No. 56 as a motion for leave to amend the § 2255 Motion, rather than as a second
or successive motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) allows a party to amend a pleading after
the opposing party has replied only with the written consent of the opposing party or
with leave of court. Leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of bad faith,
undue prejudice to the adverse party, or futility of the amendment. Davis v. Piper
Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 (4th Cir. 1980). In this case, the limitations period for
the filing of a § 2255 motion has not expired, and the United States will not be unduly
prejudiced by allowing this amendment. According, the Court GRANTS Movant leave
to amend his § 2255 motion with the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
contained in ECF No. 56. The United States is hereby ORDERED to file a supplemental
response to the § 2255 motion, specifically addressing the additional claims raised in
ECF No. 56, within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order. The United States shall
include with its supplemental response all records that would facilitate determination of
the issues raised in the amended motion. Movant may, if he wishes, file a reply to the
United States’ response within thirty (30) days after service of the response by the
United States. Movant shall, if he files any further documents in this case, mail copies of
such documents to the United States Attorney, Post Office Box 1239, Huntington, West
Virginia 25714-5545, with a certificate of service attached. Movant is also
responsible for notifying the Clerk of Court of any change in address or
other contact information.
In regard to Movant’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 57), the
Court DENIES same, without prejudice. The Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. §
3006A, authorizes district courts to appoint counsel to represent financially eligible
individuals in civil actions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “whenever the United
States magistrate judge or the court determines that the interests of justice so require.”
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Nonetheless, Movant has no constitutional right to counsel
in this case. Whether counsel should be appointed depends upon several factors,
including (1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) the ability of the litigant to
adequately investigate and present his claim; (3) the likelihood of success on the merits
of the application; and (4) the apparent need for an evidentiary hearing in order to
resolve the case. See, e.g Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984) (abrogated
on other grounds by Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989));
Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469 (8th Cir. 1994).
From a review of the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody filed herein, as amended, the Court
finds that the case is not complex; that Movant has the capability to adequately present
his claims; and the need for an evidentiary hearing is not readily apparent at this time. If
the complexion of the case changes or the need for an evidentiary hearing becomes
clear, the Court will re-visit the issue of appointment of counsel at that time.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to Movant and counsel of
record.
ENTERED: August 8, 2012.
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?