Gallagher v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JAYMES ARTHUR GALLAGHER, CASE NO. C22-5434 BHS Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Respondent.

13 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Jaymes Arthur Gallagher’s Motion for Extension of Time and for Appointment of Counsel, Dkt. 7.

15 Gallagher, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and challenges his 2020 conviction on one count of Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A),1 to which he pled guilty. Dkt. 1; see also United States v. Gallagher, 19- cr-5389 BHS, Dkt. 65.

1 Gallagher also pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances, but he challenges only his firearm conviction. See Dkt. 1.

1 As to Gallagher’s request for appointment of counsel, no constitutional right to counsel exists for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case unless the plaintiff may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). In relation to a § 2255 petition, the court may appoint counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(g). Appointment of counsel is appropriate for “any financially eligible person who . . . is seeking relief under [§ 2255]” if “the court determines that the interests of justice” require such appointment. 28 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

8 The Court concludes that justice does not require the appointment of counsel.

9 Gallagher asserts a straightforward argument that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) should be vacated because he did not use his firearms in connection with the distribution of controlled substances. See Dkt. 1. He has not established that counsel is necessary to assist him in advancing this argument or for any other purpose. The Court therefore DENIES Gallagher’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

14 Gallagher’s Motion for Extension of Time, however, is GRANTED. Gallagher’s reply to the Government’s response to his Motion to Vacate shall be due no later than November 4, 2022. The Clerk shall renote the Motion to Vacate, Dkt. 1, for consideration on the Court’s November 4, 2022 calendar.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated this 4th day of October, 2022.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge