MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SARA LIOI, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on petitioner Robert Berryhill's motion to amend his § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. (Doc. No. 44 ["Mot. to Am."]; see Doc. No. 40 ["§ 2255 Mot."].) The government has responded to the motion to amend indicating that it "does not oppose Berryhill's procedural request for addition of an argument presented through the instant motion to amend. However, the United States reserves the right to challenge the substance and argument of all claims presented by Berryhill in his initial 2255 motion and including those set forth in this amendment." (Doc. No. 46 ["Gov. Res."] at 373, emphasis omitted.) For the reasons that follow, petitioner's motion to amend is GRANTED.

A motion to amend a § 2255 motion is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings; see Hodges v. Rose, 570 F.2d 643, 649 (6th Cir. 1978) ("Amendment of a petition for habeas corpus is governed by the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions.") (quotation marks and citation omitted). Even in circumstances where leave of court is required to amend a pleading, Rule 15 counsels that "[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Petitioner timely filed his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence on April 24, 2015, less than 12 months after his appeal became final. His unopposed motion to amend, filed approximately two months later, was likewise timely. In his motion to amend, petitioner seeks leave to amend his § 2255 motion to supplement his argument that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the plea stage. In support, he appears to argue that the underlying factual predicate did not support his plea of guilty to aggravated identity theft because petitioner did not "use" another person's name as that term is understood in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. (Mot. to Am. at 361 [citing United States v. Miller, 734 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2013)].) While it is not entirely clear, the Court construes petitioner's motion as a request to amend his petition to allege that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3), there was an insufficient factual basis for his plea to the crime of aggravated identity theft. The Court shall permit petitioner to amend his § 2255 motion to add this argument.

Petitioner's motion to amend also includes a request for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. (Mot. to Am. at 367.) There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel at the habeas corpus stage. See Penn. v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1987) (The Supreme Court "ha[s] never held that prisoners have a constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks upon their convictions."); Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) ("representation may be provided") (emphasis added). Absent some showing of a particularized need for counsel, this Court declines to appoint an attorney to represent petitioner in post-conviction collateral proceedings. Petitioner's request for counsel is DENIED.

Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing. A prisoner who files a motion under § 2255 is entitled to "a prompt hearing" at which the district court is to "determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). The hearing is mandatory "unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief." Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S. 213, 215, 93 S.Ct. 1461, 36 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1973) (citation omitted); see also Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 235 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that "evidentiary hearings are not required when ... the record conclusively shows that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.") The statute "does not require a full blown evidentiary hearing in every instance ... Rather, the hearing conducted by the court, if any, must be tailored to the specific needs of the case, with due regard for the origin and complexity of the issues of fact and the thoroughness of the record on which (or perhaps, against which) the section 2255 motion is made." United States v. Torado, 982 F.2d 1025, 1030 (6th Cir. 1993). "Moreover, when the trial judge also hears the collateral proceedings ... that judge may rely on his recollections of the trial in ruling on the collateral attack." Blanton, 94 F.3d at 235 (citation omitted).

The Court finds that any determination, at this time, as to the necessity for conducting an evidentiary hearing would be premature. After briefing is complete on petitioner's amended § 2255 motion, the Court will determine whether the record "conclusively show[s] that petitioner is entitled to no relief." Fontaine, 411 U.S. at 215.

Accordingly, petitioner's motion to amend is GRANTED, and petitioner shall be granted leave until July 24, 2015 to file an amended motion containing the ineffective assistance of counsel argument outlined in his motion to amend. Following the filing of the amended § 2255 motion, the following briefing schedule shall apply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.