Opinion
Case No. 08-cr-00122-BLF-1
07-19-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PAUL G. MARTIN, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR HEARING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Before the Court is Defendant Paul G. Martin's motion for hearing in support of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and a second motion seeking appointment of counsel. Mot., ECF 85; Mot. Requesting Counsel, ECF 86. On May 26, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss Martin's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion but Martin has not timely opposed the motion to dismiss. Instead, he has now filed this request for a hearing. It is not clear whether the request for hearing pertains to the pending motion to dismiss or the § 2255 petition more generally. The Court has discretion not to conduct a full evidentiary hearing in this case if the record provides an adequate basis on which to resolve the inquiries raised in the government's motion to dismiss and Martin's § 2255 motion. See United States v. Rodriguez-Vega, 797 F.3d 781, 792 (9th Cir. 2015); United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that where a § 2255 claim "is conclusory or inherently incredible, a district court has the discretion to dismiss the petition without a hearing").
The Court will first rule on the government's motion to dismiss Martin's § 2255 motion based on the statute of limitations. No hearing is necessary or beneficial on that motion and thus the request for hearing on the pending motion is DENIED. At this time, the Court need not decide whether the record provides an adequate basis to resolve the necessary inquiries raised in Martin's § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Martin's request for a hearing without prejudice. Martin may request an evidentiary hearing in the event the Court denies the government's motion to dismiss and finds that Martin's § 2255 motion cannot be resolved without expanding the record.
As to the pending motion to dismiss filed by the government, the Court extends the deadline for Martin to file an opposition to August 2, 2017. If no opposition is filed on or before August 2, 2017, the Court will consider the government's motion to dismiss submitted.
Martin has also requested appointment of counsel in connection with his § 2255 motion. Mot. Requesting Counsel, ECF 86. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.1986). Nevertheless, a district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas or § 2255 petitioner when "the court determines that the interests of justice so require . . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(g). The question of whether or not to appoint counsel in § 2255 motions is a matter left to the judge's discretion. Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728. Martin has presented his claims adequately in the petition, and they are not particularly complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this stage of the case. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 19, 2017
/s/_________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge