Scott Taggart Roethle v. United States of America

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denies Scott Taggart Roethle’s motion for appointment of counsel in his proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court explains that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel for preparing and litigating the motion absent an evidentiary hearing, while leaving open the possibility of appointment if such a hearing is later scheduled.

Holdings

1. A movant has neither a statutory nor a constitutional right to appointed counsel for the preparation and presentation of a § 2255 motion or a reply brief.
2. The court may appoint counsel in a § 2255 proceeding when the interests of justice so require, but appointment is not warranted on the present record before an answer or evidentiary hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a movant in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding has a statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel for preparing and presenting the motion and a reply brief.
2. Whether the interests of justice required appointment of counsel before an answer or evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

other