Schmitt v. Barron

W.D. Washington

Schmitt v. Barron

DecidedSeptember 25, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01398

StatusUnknown

This text of Schmitt v. Barron (Schmitt v. Barron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmitt v. Barron, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 JACOB IVAN SCHMITT

9 Petitioner, Case No. C23-1398-JLR-MLP

10 v. ORDER REFERRING CASE TO 11 HOWARD C. BARRON, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR REVIEW 12 Respondent.

14 Petitioner Jacob Ivan Schmitt has filed a petition for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt. ## 5, 9.) While there is no constitutional 16 right to appointment of counsel in actions brought under § 2241, the Court may exercise its 17 discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the “interests of justice so 18 require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1983). 19 In this case, Petitioner’s underlying habeas petition alleges the Federal Bureau of Prisons 20 has miscalculated his sentence because it refuses to apply earned time credits he is entitled to 21 under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d), toward his remaining sentence. (Dkt. # 5.) At the 22 time of his habeas petition submission, Petitioner indicated he only had 67 days remaining to 23

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO 1 serve on his sentence, and that the application of earned time credits would entitle him to 2 immediate release from custody. (Id. at 1-2.) 3 Due to the emergent nature of Petitioner’s requested relief, and the complex issues 4 involved in this case, it appears from the record that appointment of counsel may be warranted in

5 the instant action. However, the Court has insufficient information at present to determine 6 whether Petitioner financially qualifies for such an appointment under § 3006A. 7 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 8 (1) This matter is referred to the Office of the Federal Public Defender for review. 9 (2) Within seven (7) days of the date on which this Order is signed, the Office of the 10 Federal Public Defender shall advise the Court whether it intends to seek appointment in this 11 matter. If the Office of the Federal Public Defender determines that it will seek appointment in 12 this matter, it shall assist Petitioner in preparing a financial affidavit which will allow the Court 13 to determine whether petitioner is financially eligible for such an appointment.

14 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for 15 Respondent, to the Office of the Federal Public Defender, and to the Honorable James L. Robart. 16 DATED this 25th day of September, 2023. 17 A 18 MICHELLE L. PETERSON 19 United States Magistrate Judge

21 22 23

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO

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

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 JACOB IVAN SCHMITT

9 Petitioner, Case No. C23-1398-JLR-MLP

10 v. ORDER REFERRING CASE TO 11 HOWARD C. BARRON, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR REVIEW 12 Respondent.

14 Petitioner Jacob Ivan Schmitt has filed a petition for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt. ## 5, 9.) While there is no constitutional 16 right to appointment of counsel in actions brought under § 2241, the Court may exercise its 17 discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the “interests of justice so 18 require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1983). 19 In this case, Petitioner’s underlying habeas petition alleges the Federal Bureau of Prisons 20 has miscalculated his sentence because it refuses to apply earned time credits he is entitled to 21 under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d), toward his remaining sentence. (Dkt. # 5.) At the 22 time of his habeas petition submission, Petitioner indicated he only had 67 days remaining to 23

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO 1 serve on his sentence, and that the application of earned time credits would entitle him to 2 immediate release from custody. (Id. at 1-2.) 3 Due to the emergent nature of Petitioner’s requested relief, and the complex issues 4 involved in this case, it appears from the record that appointment of counsel may be warranted in

5 the instant action. However, the Court has insufficient information at present to determine 6 whether Petitioner financially qualifies for such an appointment under § 3006A. 7 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 8 (1) This matter is referred to the Office of the Federal Public Defender for review. 9 (2) Within seven (7) days of the date on which this Order is signed, the Office of the 10 Federal Public Defender shall advise the Court whether it intends to seek appointment in this 11 matter. If the Office of the Federal Public Defender determines that it will seek appointment in 12 this matter, it shall assist Petitioner in preparing a financial affidavit which will allow the Court 13 to determine whether petitioner is financially eligible for such an appointment.

14 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for 15 Respondent, to the Office of the Federal Public Defender, and to the Honorable James L. Robart. 16 DATED this 25th day of September, 2023. 17 A 18 MICHELLE L. PETERSON 19 United States Magistrate Judge

21 22 23

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Schmitt v. Barron, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmitt-v-barron-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack