1 2 3 4 5 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
) ) Plaintiff/Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) CRISTOBAL CARRERA-ACOSTA, ) ) Defendant/Movant. ) _________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CR 03-01048 PHX JAT CIV 05-02121 PHX JAT MEA ORDER
On November 17, 2005, the Court received Movant's
15
notice of a change in address containing a motion seeking
16
appointment of counsel in this section 2255 action.
17
Counsel must be appointed to an indigent defendant in
18
a section 2255 action only when the Court has determined that an
19
evidentiary hearing regarding the section 2255 claims must be
20
held.
21 22
See United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370
(9th Cir. 1995) ("Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts states that
23
`[i]f an evidentiary hearing is required, the judge shall
24
appoint counsel for [an indigent] movant...'").
25 26
Otherwise, the
decision whether to appoint counsel rests with the discretion of the Court.
27 28
See United States v. Harrington, 410 F.3d 598, 600
(9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223, 1226
Case 2:03-cr-01048-JAT
Document 37
Filed 11/29/2005
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(11th Cir. 2004). Respondent has asserted that Movant's section 2255 petition is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, it does not appear that an evidentiary hearing will be required regarding the claims raised in the section 2255 petition. Because resolution of the timeliness of the section
2255 petition is not a complex legal inquiry, the Court will not exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for Movant.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Movant's motion for appointment of counsel, filed November 17, 2005, is denied. DATED this 21st day of November, 2005.
-2-
Case 2:03-cr-01048-JAT
Document 37
Filed 11/29/2005
Page 2 of 2