USA v. Meierding et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
Steven Edward Meierding, 	)
) 	ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
Petitioner, 	) 	EXTENSION TO FILE
) 	MEMORANDUM, DENYING
vs. 	) 	MOTION FOR COUNSEL, AND
) 	GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
United States of America, 	) 	IN PART MOTION FOR MATERIALS
)
Respondent. 	) 	Case No. 3:18-cv-013
___________________________________________________________________________
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	)
)
Steven Edward Meierding, 	) 	Case No. 3:15-cr-091
)
Defendant. 	)
___________________________________________________________________________
On January 22, 2018, the Petitioner/Defendant filed a “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody.” See Docket No. 118. In
addition to the Section 2255 motion, Meierding contemporaneously filed several other motions:
“Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Law to Support §2255 Motion,” “Motion for
Appointment of Counsel Pursuant 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B),” and “Motion for Case Material.”
See Docket Nos. 119, 120, and 121. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for an extension to
file memorandum is granted, the motion to appoint counsel is denied, and the motion for case
materials are granted in part and denied in part.
I. 	MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE MEMORANDUM
In his “Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Law to Support §2255 Motion,”
Meierding requests an additional ninety (90) days to file a memorandum of law in support of his
Case 3:15-cr-00091-DLH Document 122 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 4

2
Section 2255 motion. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court grants Meierding an extension to file
a memorandum. Meierding shall have until May 1, 2018, to file any additional memoranda in support
of his Section 2255 motion.
II. 	MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
In his “Motion for Appointment of Counsel Pursuant 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B),” Meierding
requests the Court appoint him counsel. Specifically, Meierding contends it is appropriate to appoint
counsel for his Section 2255 motion because the case requires a review of discovery, he has limited
knowledge of the law, and he does not have adequate access to the law library at the federal prison
he is located. See Docket No. 120. There is neither a constitutional right nor statutory right to counsel
in habeas proceedings. See Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v.
Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 455 (8th Cir. 1999); Blair v. Armontrout, 916 F.2d 1310, 1332 (8th Cir.
1990); see also Boyd v. Groose, 4 F.3d 669, 671 (8th Cir. 1993) (explaining that a habeas corpus
proceeding is a civil proceeding to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel afforded for criminal
proceedings does not apply). The Court may nevertheless appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner at
any time if it finds that the “the interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). If a
court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the motion, the interests of justice require that the movant
be appointed counsel. 	See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States
District Courts; see also Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994). 	“If no evidentiary
hearing is necessary, the appointment of counsel is discretionary.” Id.
When exercising its discretion, a court should determine whether, given the particular
circumstances of the case, “the appointment of counsel would benefit the petitioner and the court to
such an extent that ‘the interests of justice so require’ it.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A(a)(2) and
Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1990)). Thus, a court should consider a number of
Case 3:15-cr-00091-DLH Document 122 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 4

3
relevant factors, including the factual complexity of the case and the movant’s ability to investigate
and present his claim. 	See Abdullah, 18 F.3d at 573; see also Battle, 902 F.2d at 702; Johnson v.
Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir.1986).
In his Section 2255 motion, Meierding merely states “INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL” as the grounds for which he claims he is being unlawfully held. See Docket No. 118.
Meierding provides no factual basis to support his claims. With only a vague, minimal description
of his claims, Meierding has failed to demonstrate to the Court the facts of his case are particularly
complex or that he is unable to present his factual claims. Moreover, Meierding has not demonstrated
how constraints on his access to a law library prevent him from providing a factual basis to support
his claims. 	A petitioner may certainly state the facts underpinning a Section 2255 motion without
requiring the use of a law library. Moreover, the Court has given Meierding an extension to file a
memorandum in support of his Section 2255 motion, allowing him additional time to research and/or
utilize a law library, if necessary. 	In the exercise of its broad discretion, the Court finds that the
interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel in this case at this time. Consequently,
the Court denies the motion (Docket No. 120) for appointment of counsel in this habeas proceeding.
III. 	MOTION FOR CASE MATERIALS
In his “Motion for Case Material,” Meierding requests copies of certain documents to “assist
him in properly preparing a § 2255 motion.” See Docket No. 121. Meierding specifically requests
copies of:
1. 	Plea hearing transcripts,
2. 	Plea agreement,
3. 	Sentencing hearing transcripts,
4. 	Investigative and supplemental reports (written, audio, and visual),
Case 3:15-cr-00091-DLH Document 122 Filed 02/02/18 Page 3 of 4

4
5. 	All discovery given to sentencing counsel,
6. 	Grand jury transcripts,
7. 	The indictment, and
8. 	Docket reports.
See Docket No. 121. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to provide copies of the indictment, plea
agreement, and the docket sheet. Transcripts of the grand jury testimony, change of plea hearing, and
sentencing were not prepared. Also, neither “investigative and supplemental reports,” nor “discovery
given to sentencing counsel by Government” are within the possession of the Court, and the Court
does not have the ability to provide these materials to Meierding. Therefore, the Court grants in part
and denies in part the motion for case materials (Docket No. 121).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the “Motion for Extension of Time to
File Memorandum of Law to Support §2255 Motion,” (Docket No. 119) DENIES the “Motion for
Appointment of Counsel Pursuant 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B),” (Docket No. 120) and GRANTS IN
PART AND DENIES IN PART the “Motion for Case Material” (Docket No. 121).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2018.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:15-cr-00091-DLH Document 122 Filed 02/02/18 Page 4 of 4