Opinion
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On May 15, 2015, Defendant filed a motion in which he requests an "[o]rder that reasonably necessary ancillary services be provided to [him] including a paralegal and a law clerk to submit pleadings before judgment; and an investigator to obtain suppressed evidence and tests." (Def.'s Mot. 3:17-20, ECF No. 83.)
The government "takes no position on [this] request, " but states, inter alia, that such "requests made by a pro se defendant must be accompanied by an adequate explanation as to the need for the specific resources." (Gov't Resp. 1:24, 2:16-23, ECF No. 91.)
Defendant does not specify what "ancillary services" he seeks other than what is referenced the above. Further, he has not shown that the any of the identified services are "necessary for adequate representation." United States v. Knox, 540 F.3d 708, 716-17 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1)); see also United States v. Armstrong, 621 F.2d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1980) ("[§ 3006A(e)] requires the district judge to authorize [investigative] services when... a timely request [is made] in circumstances in which a reasonable attorney would engage such services for a client having the independent financial means to pay for them."); cf. Smith v. Enomoto, 615 F.2d 1251, (9th Cir. 1980) (indicating a defendant appearing pro se must show need for state-funded investigative services before the same is authorized). When deciding whether to grant a pro se defendant's expenditure request, "the court may consider whether the defendant has a plausible defense'" or reason for the request since "the government does not have to finance a fishing expedition.'" Knox, 540 F.3d at 716 (quoting United States v. King, 356 F.3d 774, 778 (7th Cir. 2004)).
Here, Defendant has not shown that use of an investigator to obtain "suppressed evidence and tests" is necessary at this stage of the proceeding where he has been found guilty by a jury and only sentencing remains for decision. Further, it is unknown why Defendant requests a paralegal and/or law clerk "to submit pleadings before judgment" when he has successfully filed multiple pro se filings from the Sacramento County Main Jail. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 74, 79, 81-85.)
It is unclear what Defendant means by "law clerk."
For the stated reasons, Defendant's request for ancillary services is DENIED.