Gonzales v. United States
Decision Date | 04 April 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 3:17-cv-603-M-BN,3:17-cv-603-M-BN |
Parties | SALVADOR GONZALES (BOP Register No. 09892-078), Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Movant Salvador Gonzales, a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se, moves to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Dkt. No. 2. This action has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn.
The motion, Gonzales's first Section 2255 motion concerning this criminal judgment, appears to be timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) and includes a 36-page brief written in Spanish. See Dkt. No. 2 at 11-46; see also id. at 47 () .
Upon review of the brief and Gonzales's financial affidavit, filed in response to the Court's March 3, 2017 notice of deficiency and order, see Dkt. Nos. 3 & 4, the Court concludes sua sponte that the interests of justice require the translation of the Spanish-only brief.
"No constitutional right to counsel exists in federal postconviction proceedings." Urias v. Thaler, 455 F. App'x 522, 523 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)); see also United States v. Garcia, 689 F.3d 362, 364-65 (5th Cir. 2012). But, under the Criminal Justice Act (the "CJA"), "a [habeas] petitioner should be appointed counsel when 'the interests of justice so require.'" Urias, 455 F. App'x at 523 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)).
The exercise of discretion in this area is guided ... by certain basic principles. When applying this standard and exercising its discretion in this field, the court should determine both whether the petition presents significant legal issues, and if the appointment of counsel will benefit the petitioner and the court in addressing this claim.
Jackson v. Coleman, Civil No. 3:11-cv-1837, 2012 WL 4504485, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2012) (citing Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991)); see Scoggins v. MacEachern, Civ. A. No. 04-10814-PBS, 2010 WL 3169416, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 10, 2010) ( ; see also Lyle v. United States, Civ. A. No. JFM-09-727 & Crim. No. JFM-02-395, 2009 WL 901523, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2009) ( ).
Relatedly, "under the CJA[, a party,] may move for the translation of documents if they are necessary for adequate representation." United States v. Wattanasiri, 141 F.3d 1152 (table), 1998 WL 105769, at *2 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 1998) (per curiam) ( ). Indeed, Section 3006A(e)(1), which provides that counsel for a person "who is financially unable to obtain investigative, expert, or other services necessary for adequate representation may request them in an ex parte application," id., may be the only statutory means to authorize funds for the translation of documents in this case, see, e.g., United States v. Flores, No. 1:10CR332-2, 2012 WL 1463602, at *8-*9 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2012) ( ); see also Gibson v. Jackson, 578 F.2d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir. 1978) ( )("if the need for expert witnesses is shown, federal funds for their services" may be authorized under Section 3006A(e)(1) in a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254) that, ; Dixon v. Admin. Appeal Dep't Office of Info. & Privacy, No. 06 Civ. 6069(LAK), 2008 WL 216304, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008) .
Gomez v. Myers, 627 F. Supp. 183, 184 (E.D. Tex. 1985).
Neither the undersigned nor a member of his staff is fluent in Spanish. And the Court is not prepared to serve Gonzales's motion on the United States expecting that the government will pay to translate the brief. Cf. Wattanasiri, 1998 WL 105769, at *2 ( .
But at least three more options appear available.
One option is to require that Gonzales re-file his brief in English. As acknowledge above, however, to do so would not be pursuant to a statute or rule. And, while relying "on the assistance of fellow inmates more proficient in English to prosecute [an action may be] an acknowledged reality of habeas corpus proceedings" for many petitioners, Esquivel v. United States, No. 3:15-cv-553-D-BN, 2016 WL 6902150, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2016) (citations omitted), rec. adopted, 2016 WL 6902183 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2016), here, the Court is hesitant to require an inmate who has already himself prepared a substantial pleading in a language other than English to enlist another inmate to translate that pleading just because the Court cannot read it.
So, given the particulars of this action, the better options begin with the CJA. The Court could appoint counsel, at least for the purpose of preparing an amended Section 2255 motion, under that statute. But, considering the preliminary nature of this proceeding, a more conservative approach is found in Section 3006A(e)(1).
That section allows even a pro se litigant to request "other services necessary for adequate representation." Id. See United States v. Hamlet, 456 F.2d 1284, 1284 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) ( (citations omitted); see also United States v. Enigwe, No. Crim. A. 92-00257, 1994 WL 263261, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 13, 1994) ; United States v. Bissell, 954 F. Supp. 903, 922 (D.N.J. 1997) ( ; but see Edwards v. Miller, Civ. No. 14-0429 JAH (KSC), 2015 WL 10963718, at *26 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015) .
Having concluded that a pro se habeas petitioner may request services under Section 3006A(e)(1), the Court need not in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial