Opinion
No. CR 10-703 MMC
10-28-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL HIGGINBOTHAM, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL; GRANTING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION
Before the Court are two motions by defendant Michael Higginbotham: (1) a "Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 2255," filed August 3, 2011, and (2) a motion titled "Higginbotham seeks leave to brief his Section 2255," filed October 6, 2011. Having read and considered the above-referenced motions, the Court rules as follows.
The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Pursuant to statute, however, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a financially eligible defendant, moving under § 2255, whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require." See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Here, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. Defendant's pro se filings to date indicate he is able to adequately present his claims. Further, at this early stage of the proceedings, the Court is not in a position to determine whether an evidentiary hearing will be required. See Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728 (holding "[u]nless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court"). Should the circumstances change materially at a later stage of the proceedings, the Court will reconsider the issue. Accordingly, defendant's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.
By the latter of the above two motions, defendant requests leave to "supplement" and file a "memorandum of law" in support of his "Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Sentence" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Good cause appearing, said request is hereby GRANTED. Defendant shall file his supplement no later than December 2, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge