Takai v. United States

D. Utah

Takai v. United States

DecidedMarch 27, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00023

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Takai v. United States, (D. Utah 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

SIONE ONE TAKAI, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Petitioner, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. NO. 2) v. Case No. 2:23-cv-00023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby Respondent. Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

Pro se petitioner Sione One Takai moves for appointment of counsel in this case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 There is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in § 2255 proceedings, unless an evidentiary hearing is held.2 Nevertheless, counsel may be appointed when “the interests of justice so require” for a “financially eligible person” seeking relief under § 2255.3 After review of Mr. Takai’s filings, justice does not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Mr. Takai, through his filings, has shown an “ability to investigate the facts necessary

1 (See Petition for Appointment of Counsel, Doc. No. 2.) 2 See Gurule v. United States, No. 2:21-cv-00344, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224126, at *1 (D. Utah Nov. 18, 2021) (unpublished); Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts 8(c). 3 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). for [the] issues and to articulate them in a meaningful fashion.”* Additionally, the issues Mr. Takai raises appear to be “straightforward and not so complex as to require counsel’s assistance.”° Finally, it is not apparent at this stage that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Therefore, Mr. Takai’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. However, if it later appears counsel may be needed or of specific help, an attorney may be appointed. DATED this 27th day of March, 2023. BY THE COURT:

nike A. Oberg United States Magistrate Judge

4 Sandoval-Ochoa v. United States, No. 2:16-cv-1052, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57112, at *1 (D. Utah Apr. 13, 2017) (unpublished) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). > Td. (internal quotation marks omitted).

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

SIONE ONE TAKAI, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Petitioner, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. NO. 2) v. Case No. 2:23-cv-00023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby Respondent. Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

Pro se petitioner Sione One Takai moves for appointment of counsel in this case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 There is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in § 2255 proceedings, unless an evidentiary hearing is held.2 Nevertheless, counsel may be appointed when “the interests of justice so require” for a “financially eligible person” seeking relief under § 2255.3 After review of Mr. Takai’s filings, justice does not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Mr. Takai, through his filings, has shown an “ability to investigate the facts necessary

1 (See Petition for Appointment of Counsel, Doc. No. 2.) 2 See Gurule v. United States, No. 2:21-cv-00344, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224126, at *1 (D. Utah Nov. 18, 2021) (unpublished); Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts 8(c). 3 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). for [the] issues and to articulate them in a meaningful fashion.”* Additionally, the issues Mr. Takai raises appear to be “straightforward and not so complex as to require counsel’s assistance.”° Finally, it is not apparent at this stage that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Therefore, Mr. Takai’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. However, if it later appears counsel may be needed or of specific help, an attorney may be appointed. DATED this 27th day of March, 2023. BY THE COURT:

nike A. Oberg United States Magistrate Judge

4 Sandoval-Ochoa v. United States, No. 2:16-cv-1052, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57112, at *1 (D. Utah Apr. 13, 2017) (unpublished) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). > Td. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Takai v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/takai-v-united-states-utd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack