Brown v. U.S.

Full title: RICHARD BROWN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington

Date published: Jun 8, 2009

Case No. C08-5599RBL (W.D. Wash. Jun. 8, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. C08-5599RBL.

June 8, 2009

ORDER

RONALD LEIGHTON, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon several motions filed by the defendant. Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

Defendant seeks the appointment of counsel to assist in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. [Dkt. #18]. The appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding is discretionary. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9^th Cir. 1987); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g). The decision is based on the complexity of the legal issues involved and the likelihood of success on the merits. Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9^th Cir. 1983). Because defendant has demonstrated a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present them to the Court, the Court declines to appoint an attorney to assist defendant in his § 2255 motion. See LaMere, 827 F.2d at 626.

Defendant next seeks clarification of the scope of this Court's previous Order [Dkt. #15] ruling that the defendant has waived the attorney client privilege. [Dkt. #19]. As the Order states, the information provided to the government by defendant's former counsel is limited to litigating this § 2255 motion. No information obtained from defense counsel may be used in any reprosecution of the defendant.

The defendant also seeks discovery from the government. [Dkt. #20]. Because defendant's claims all relate to his right to a speedy trial and the effectiveness of his counsel in protecting that right, he is not entitled to the discovery he seeks. All of the information he needs to litigate his claims and for the Court to decide this matter is either currently before the Court or will be provided in any supplemental declaration of defendant's former counsel.

This Court previously permitted the defendant an extension of time to file any traverse to the government's answer, and permitted the government to file a supplemental declaration of Paula Olson, defendant's former counsel. In order to effectuate those prior rulings, any supplemental declaration of Ms. Olson shall be filed on or before June 22, 2009. Defendant's traverse, if any, shall be filed on or before July 20, 2009 and this matter will be noted on the Court's motion's calendar for July 24, 2009.

Defendant's motions for appointment of counsel [Dkt. #18] and for discovery [Dkt. #20] are DENIED. Defendant's motion for clarification [Dkt. #19] is GRANTED as set forth in this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se.