Schavey v. USA, No. 2:2017cv00379 - Document 5 (D. Utah 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 7/5/2017. (eat)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Schavey v. USA Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH RAYMOND CHARLES SCHAVEY, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil Case No. 2:17-CV-379 TS Criminal Case No. 2:16-CR-63 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 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. Wyo., 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 Considering these factors, the Court declines to appoint counsel at this time. However, the Court will grant Petitioner additional time to file his reply brief based on his representation that prison lockdowns have interfered with his ability to research the issues raised in his § 2255 motion. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner’s reply brief is due by August 7, 2017. DATED this 5th day of July, 2017. 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.
