Opinion
20-cr-00271-VC-1
03-29-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HALEY, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR HEARING AND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL RE: DKT. NO. 25
VINCE CHHABRIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Haley's request for a hearing and motion to appoint counsel are denied.
Haley requests a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) by claiming exemptions to enforcement of the writ of garnishment. But the exemption categories he asserts are unrelated to the writ of garnishment, which seeks to collect Haley's wages from the garnishee. Therefore, Haley fails to raise any cognizable objections that could be considered at a hearing. See United States v. Sam, No. 2:23-MC-00074-LK, 2024 WL 519564, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2024).
Haley's motion for appointment of counsel is also denied. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to post-judgment garnishment proceedings, and the Court sees no basis in this case to appoint counsel in its discretion. See United States v. Cohan, 798 F.3d 84, 85 (2d. Cir. 2015); see also United States v. Mays, 430 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2005).
Because Haley has not raised any valid objections, the garnishee must comply with the terms of the Writ of Continuing Garnishment. See Dkt. No. 20.
IT IS SO ORDERED.