Rodelo-Cota v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 22, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00110
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Miguel Angel Rodelo-Cota, No. CV-22-00110-TUC-RM

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States of America,

13 Respondent. 14 15 On March 7, 2022, Movant Miguel Angel Rodelo-Cota (“Rodelo-Cota”) filed a 16 pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, raising 17 three grounds for relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea stage of 18 Rodelo-Cota’s criminal proceedings. (Doc. 1.) In the § 2255 Motion, Rodelo-Cota 19 requested the appointment of counsel. (Id. at 10.) The Court summarily dismissed 20 Ground One of the § 2255 Motion, ordered the United States of America to answer the 21 remainder of the § 2255 Motion, and denied without prejudice the request for 22 appointment of counsel. (Doc. 4.) The United States of America filed its Response to 23 the § 2255 Motion on May 19, 2022. (Doc. 5.) Rodelo-Cota did not file a reply. 24 On June 21, 2022, Rodelo-Cota filed two Motions (Docs. 6, 7) asking the Court to 25 reconsider its denial of his request for the appointment of counsel. In the Motions, 26 Rodelo-Cota avers that he requires the appointment of counsel in order to provide 27 evidentiary support for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Docs. 6, 7.) 28 As the Court previously explained, counsel must be appointed when necessary for || effective discovery, when an evidentiary hearing is required, and when the complexities of the case are such that lack of counsel would equate to the denial of due process. Rules || Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts 6(a) and 8(c); Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court must also determine whether 5 || the “interests of justice” require the appointment of counsel by assessing the likelihood of 6 || success on the merits and the movant’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of 7\|| the complexity of the legal issues. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 8 || F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). 9 The Court has already determined that the appointment of counsel is not warranted 10 || based on an assessment of the likelihood of success on the merits and Rodelo-Cota’s 11 || ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues □□ involved. (Doc. 4.) Rodelo-Cota’s presently pending Motions offer no reason for the 13 || Court to reconsider that determination. Furthermore, Rodelo-Cota has not requested discovery and has not established good cause for discovery. See Rules Governing § 2255 15 || Proceedings for the United States District Courts 6(a)-(b). The Court has not, at this 16 || time, determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, and there presently is no 17 || indication that lack of counsel would result in the denial of due process. 18 Accordingly, Rodelo-Cota’s Motions will be denied without prejudice. If the 19 || Court later determines that discovery or an evidentiary hearing is required, the Court will 20 || appoint counsel at that time. 21 IT IS ORDERED that Rodelo-Cota’s Motions seeking the appointment of 22 || counsel (Docs. 6, 7) are denied without prejudice. 23 Dated this 21st day of July, 2022. 24 25 26 — 4p □ a Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 28 United States District □□□□□

_2-