Opinion
Case No. 8:06-CV-386-T-30EAJ, 8:01-CR-072-T-30EAJ.
April 20, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (CV Dkt. 2) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (CV Dkt. 3). Petitioner filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on March 6, 2006 (CV Dkt. 1). Because the matter is effectively a continuation of Petitioner's criminal proceedings, no filing fee is assessed. Therefore, it is not necessary that Petitioner seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
As to Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel, there is no automatic constitutional right to legal representation in collateral proceedings. Hooks v. Wainwright, 775 F.2d 1433, 1438 (11th Cir. 1985). Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary at this stage of these proceedings. In the event that the Court decides that an evidentiary hearing is required in this matter, it will notify Petitioner of that decision, and an attorney will be appointed to represent him if he meets the criteria found at 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A). See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings 8(c) (2005).
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ORDERS that:
1. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as unnecessary ( CV Dkt. #2).
2. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice ( CV Dkt. #3).
DONE and ORDERED.