From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Padilla-Martinez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
May 2, 2023
2:19-cr-00159 DAD CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 2, 2023)

Opinion

2:19-cr-00159 DAD CKD P

05-02-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. FILEMON PADILLA-MARTINEZ, Movant


ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Movant requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in § 2255 proceedings. See, e.g., Irwin v. United States, 414 F.2d 606 (9th Cir. 1969). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. As movant's § 2255 motion has been fully briefed by the parties, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. For the same reason, the court denies movant's request to conduct discovery in this post-conviction proceeding.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's request for appointment of counsel and to conduct discovery (ECF No. 220) is denied without prejudice.


Summaries of

United States v. Padilla-Martinez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
May 2, 2023
2:19-cr-00159 DAD CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 2, 2023)
Case details for

United States v. Padilla-Martinez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. FILEMON PADILLA-MARTINEZ, Movant

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: May 2, 2023

Citations

2:19-cr-00159 DAD CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 2, 2023)