Opinion
CASE NO. C20-0484JLR
05-08-2020
SANTOS PETER MURILLO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Before the court is Petitioner Santos Peter Murillo's motion for extension of time (MFE (Dkt. # 6)) and motion to appoint counsel (MTA (Dkt. # 9)). The court has considered the motions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court DENIES Mr. Murillo's motions.
On March 27, 2020, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Mr. Murillo filed a petition for habeas corpus or motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. (See Pet. (Dkt. # 1)); see also United States v. Murillo, No. CR16-0113JLR (W.D. Wash.). Mr. Murillo's habeas petition is 36 pages long and includes extrinsic evidence and lengthy arguments in support of Mr. Murillo's alleged grounds for relief. (See generally id.) On April 6, 2020, Mr. Murillo filed a motion seeking a 90-day extension of time in which to file a "memorandum of law in support of his recently submitted Section 2255 motion." (See MFE at 1.) On April 16, 2020, Mr. Murillo filed a motion for the court to appoint counsel to assist Mr. Murillo with the memorandum that Mr. Murillo seeks to submit in support of his habeas petition. (See MTA at 1-2.)
Mr. Murillo is not entitled to a 90-day extension to file a memorandum in support of his habeas petition under the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. According to the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, Mr. Murillo was required to include all grounds for relief available to him in his motion for habeas relief. See Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts ("The motion must . . . (1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the moving party[.]").) The rules governing Section 2255 proceedings do not include a procedure through which Mr. Murillo may supplement his habeas motion with a "memorandum of law," and Mr. Murillo does not identify any authority that would entitle him to file such a memorandum.
Moreover, even if there was a procedural vehicle through which Mr. Murillo could file a separate memorandum of law, the court finds that he has failed to articulate sufficient grounds to justify his delayed filing. Mr. Murillo claims that he needs an extension because (1) Mr. Murillo has "just recently" received evidence related to his Brady challenge, and (2) the COVID-19 pandemic has limited his access to the law library. (See MFE at 2-3.) Mr. Murillo's motion does not provide any specificity as to what new evidence he received or when he received that new evidence. (See MFE at 2-3.) Nor does Mr. Murillo explain why he was unable to adequately prepare his § 2255 motion prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. (See id.) As such, Mr. Murillo's request for an extension of time is DENIED.
Mr. Murillo also asks the court to appoint counsel to represent him in this matter. (See MTA at 1-3.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, a district court may appoint counsel in the "interests of justice" in a case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). "In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954 (italics in original). Having reviewed the record in this case and being mindful of the standard set forth in Weygandt, the court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this matter. Specifically, the court notes that Mr. Murillo alleges that he needs appointed counsel to "prepare and submit a memorandum of law to the [c]ourt" in support of his § 2255 petition (see MTA at 2). As discussed above, however, Mr. Murillo is not entitled to file such a memorandum. Further, the court has reviewed Mr. Murillo's filings to date and concludes that he is capable of articulating his claims pro se in this matter. Accordingly, his motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. //
For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Murillo's motion for extension of time (Dkt. # 6) and motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 9) are DENIED.
Dated this 8th day of May, 2020.
/s/_________
JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge