Schmitt v. Barron

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided September 25, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-01398·Unknown

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO

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

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

Schmitt v. Barron (Schmitt v. Barron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related