MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.

WHEREAS, Petitioner Ralph Dennis has filed a pro se Motion to Correct, Vacate, or Set Aside his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see ECF No. 1; and

WHEREAS, Respondent United States of America has filed a Motion to Dismiss the § 2255 Motion with a return date of September 3, 2019, see ECF No. 11; and

WHEREAS, Petitioner has submitted a letter to the Court requesting the appointment of counsel and a writ of habeas corpus to secure his presence for the "evidentiary style hearing on September 03, 2019, in which the petitioner is entitled to appear and argue against the government's assertion that counsel could not be considered ineffective . . . .", see ECF No. 13 at 1; and

WHEREAS, there is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings. See Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 3006A(a)(2)(B) of Title 18 provides that the court has discretion to appoint counsel where "the court determines that the interests of justice so require . . . ."; and

WHEREAS, the relevant factors in this inquiry include "`(i) the likelihood of success on the merits; (ii) the complexity of the legal issues raised by the complaint; and (iii) the ability of the prisoner to investigate and present the case.'" Neeld v. New Jersey, 2012 WL 603293, *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2012) (quoting Paul v. Attorney Gen. of State of N.J., 1992 WL 184358, *1 (D.N.J. July 10, 1992)). However, "[w]here these issues are `straightforward and capable of resolution on the record,' or when the petitioner has `a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions,' the court would not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel." Biggins v. Snyder, No. 99-18, 2001 WL 125337, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 8, 2001) (quoting Ferguson v. Jones, 905 F.2d 211, 214 (8th Cir. 1990); La Mere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987)); and

WHEREAS, Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed and a writ of habeas corpus issued because he is entitled to present evidence at the hearing on September 3, 2019. However, there is no evidentiary hearing scheduled on September 3, 2019. That date is the return date of Respondent's motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 11; and

WHEREAS, Respondent's motion to dismiss does not comply with the requirements of the Court's May 10, 2019 Order to Answer and the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Responsive pleadings that address the merits of the § 2255 Motion, as opposed to the untimeliness or other procedural deficiencies, must be accompanied by the required documentation, see ECF No. 6; and

WHEREAS, the pending Motion to Dismiss is procedurally deficient, it would be premature to determine whether counsel is appropriate in this matter.

THEREFORE,

IT IS on this 28th day of August, 2019

ORDERED that Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 13) IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer that conforms to the Court's May 10, 2019 Order to Answer within 60 days of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that Petitioner may submit a response to the Answer within 30 days of receiving the Answer; and it is finally

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner by regular first-class mail.