Deundra L. Moore, Jr. v. United States of America

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

DEUNDRA L. MOORE, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) Case No. 1:26-cv-00056-SNLJ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 8] in this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in § 2255 proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 792 (8th Cir. 2010). A court may appoint counsel in a § 2255 proceeding if the interests of justice so require. Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(g); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In exercising its discretion, a court considers the legal and factual complexity of the case and petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his claims. Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 559 (8th Cir. 2000). Here, the Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. It is apparent from the § 2255 petition that the petitioner understands the issues. The petition is sufficiently clear to enable the Court to determine whether § 2255 relief is warranted, and petitioner’s claims can be resolved on the record before the Court without an evidentiary hearing. That said, if upon further review, the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings requires the appointment of counsel to represent a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Green v. United States, 262 F.3d 715, 717-19 (8th Cir. 2001). Under those circumstances, the Court would sua sponte appoint counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 8] is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2026.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH,JR. “ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE