McCoy v. USA, No. 2:2016cv00487 - Document 3 (D. Utah 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 6/9/2016. (eat)

Download PDF
McCoy v. USA Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL HICKORY WESLEY MCCOY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil Case No. 2:16-CV-487 TS Criminal Case No. 2:12-CR-218 TS Respondent. District Judge Ted Stewart This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel to assist in his recently filed motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. “[T]here is no right to counsel in collateral proceedings.” 1 Only when an evidentiary hearing is required is a defendant entitled to counsel. 2 The decision to appoint counsel is left to the sound discretion of the Court. 3 “In determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider a variety of factors, including the merits of the litigant’s claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.” 4 Considering these factors, the Court declines to appoint counsel at this time. 1 United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1229 (10th Cir. 2006); see also Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1990) (stating that “the right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further”). 2 Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United States District 3 Engberg v. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109, 1122 (10th Cir. 2001). 4 Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). Courts. 1 Dockets.Justia.com It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 9th day of June, 2016. BY THE COURT: Ted Stewart United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.