ORDER

KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are Defendant's Motions to Appoint Counsel (#1080, 1081) and Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (#1082). An indigent petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 may move the court for appointment of representation to pursue that relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(2)(B). The court has discretion to appoint counsel when the interest of justice so requires. 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(2). The interest of justice so requires where the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process. See Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61 (9th Cir.1980).

Here, the Court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted. The issues raised in Defendant's Motions to Appoint Counsel are not complex and Defendant has made no showing as to why denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to counsel.

Further, Defendant is not required to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis to file a §2255 Motion because Defendant was indigent during the underlying proceedings leading to his incarceration. See F.R.C.P. Rule 24(a) (3) ("A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization.")

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motions to Appoint Counsel (#1080, 1081) are DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (#1082) is DENIED as moot.