From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hall

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Aug 10, 2023
2:14-cr-00321-GMN-NJK-1 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2023)

Opinion

2:14-cr-00321-GMN-NJK-1

08-10-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN HALL, Defendant.


ORDER

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Kevin Hall's (“Petitioner”) Letter, (ECF No. 439), which the Court construes as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

By the instant Motion, Petitioner requests the Court appoint counsel to assist him in his pending Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“§ 2255 Motion”). (ECF No. 434). Petitioner argues appointment of counsel is needed for him to adequately respond to the Government's contention his § 2255 Motion is untimely, and articulately present his claim that his conviction should be vacated because Hobbs Act Robbery is not a crime of violence. (Mot. Appoint Counsel at 1).

The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). An indigent petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 may move the court for appointment of representation to pursue that relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(2)(B). The court has discretion to appoint counsel when the interest of justice so requires. 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(2). The interest of justice so requires where the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process. See Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980).

Here, the Court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted. The issues raised in Petitioner's § 2255 are not complex, and Petitioner has adequately stated his claims. United States v. Guzman-Cellabos, No. 2:14-cr-00183, 2023 WL 2020060, at *3 (D. Nev. Feb. 14, 2023).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, (ECF No. 439), is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will be given an additional three weeks to file a Reply to the Government's Response, (ECF No. 438). Petitioner's Reply is now due by August 31, 2023.


Summaries of

United States v. Hall

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Aug 10, 2023
2:14-cr-00321-GMN-NJK-1 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2023)
Case details for

United States v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN HALL, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Aug 10, 2023

Citations

2:14-cr-00321-GMN-NJK-1 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2023)