IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 9, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT,
LATOYA LAWSON, MOVANT.
Movant is a federal prison inmate proceeding pro se with a motion to vacate her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. She has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and a motion to defer payments; respondent has filed a motion to dismiss.
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. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time.
It is unclear what movant is seeking in her motion to defer fees because there is no filing fee for a motion to vacate her sentence.
Finally, respondent has filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that there is an appeal pending from the revocation of movant's term of supervised release. The Ninth Circuit's docket shows that on July 26, 2010, movant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal but that the Court of Appeals has not acted on the request. Movant will be given thirty days from the date of this order to inform this court of any further action by the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Movant's motion for the appointment of counsel (docket no. 47) is denied without prejudice;
2. Movant's motion to defer payments (docket no. 49) is denied without prejudice; and
3. Movant is given an additional thirty days from the date of this order to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss or otherwise inform this court of the status of her appeal. Movant is cautioned that a failure to respond to this order will result in an order recommending that her motion to vacate be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.