Melgar-Cabrera v. United States

D. New Mexico

Melgar-Cabrera v. United States

DecidedSeptember 1, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-01056

StatusUnknown

This text of Melgar-Cabrera v. United States (Melgar-Cabrera v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Melgar-Cabrera v. United States, (D.N.M. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FRANCISCO MELGAR-CABRERA, Petitioner, Vv. No. 19-cv-1056 WJ-KK No. 09-cr-2962 WJ-KK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL This matter is before the Court following Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Habeas Proceeding (CV Doc. 2). There is no constitutional right to such relief in a habeas proceeding. See Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212, 1218 (0th Cir. 2008). Unless and until an evidentiary hearing 1s held, “[t]he decision to appoint counsel is left to the sound discretion of the district court.” Engberg v. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109, 1122 (10th Cir. 2001). Factors guiding such discretion include “the merits of the litigant’s claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.” Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). Considering these factors, the Court is not persuaded counsel should be appointed at this time. Petitioner raises a well-defined legal argument, and it is at least questionable whether he will prevail. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Habeas Proceeding (CV Doc. 2) is DENIED without prejudice.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FRANCISCO MELGAR-CABRERA, Petitioner, Vv. No. 19-cv-1056 WJ-KK No. 09-cr-2962 WJ-KK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL This matter is before the Court following Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Habeas Proceeding (CV Doc. 2). There is no constitutional right to such relief in a habeas proceeding. See Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212, 1218 (0th Cir. 2008). Unless and until an evidentiary hearing 1s held, “[t]he decision to appoint counsel is left to the sound discretion of the district court.” Engberg v. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109, 1122 (10th Cir. 2001). Factors guiding such discretion include “the merits of the litigant’s claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.” Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). Considering these factors, the Court is not persuaded counsel should be appointed at this time. Petitioner raises a well-defined legal argument, and it is at least questionable whether he will prevail. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Habeas Proceeding (CV Doc. 2) is DENIED without prejudice.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Melgar-Cabrera v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melgar-cabrera-v-united-states-nmd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack