Rajab v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
JAPHER YOSUF RAJAB,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
5:22-CV-05053-KES
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COUNSEL (DOC. 13)
Petitioner has filed the present Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc.
13). This habeas corpus matter is pending pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. “There
is no recognized constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment for the
appointment of counsel in habeas corpus cases.” Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469,
471 (8th Cir. 1994). Because a habeas action is civil in nature, the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel which is applicable in criminal proceedings does not
apply. Id.
The statutory basis for the appointment of counsel in a habeas case is found
at 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Rules 6(a) & 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2255
Cases in United States District Courts. Those statutes provide in relevant part:
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B):
(2) 	Whenever 	the 	United 	States 	magistrate 	judge 	or 	the 	court
determines that the interests of justice so require, representation
may be provided for any financially eligible person who
**
Case 5:22-cv-05053-KES Document 15 Filed 06/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

(B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.
Rule 6(a):
If necessary for effective discovery, the judge must appoint an attorney
for a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18
U.S.C. § 3006A.
Rule 8(c):
If an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the judge must appoint an
attorney 	to 	represent 	a 	petitioner 	who 	qualifies 	to 	have 	counsel
appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A . . . . 	These rules do not limit the
appointment of counsel under § 3006A at any stage of the proceeding.
The appointment of counsel in a habeas case is discretionary when no
evidentiary hearing is necessary. Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471 (internal citations
omitted). “In exercising its discretion, the district court should consider the legal
complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and the petitioner’s
ability to investigate and present his claims, along with any other relevant factors.”
Id.
Based on the claims in Petitioner’s § 2255 petition (Doc. 1), the interests of
justice do not warrant appointing counsel at this time. Should this court
determine subsequently that Petitioner has claims which require counsel for
effective discovery or the holding of an evidentiary hearing, the court will appoint
counsel at that time. At the present time, the motion is premature, and
accordingly, is denied.
DATED this 16th day of June, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
DANETA WOLLMANN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:22-cv-05053-KES Document 15 Filed 06/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>