Filed: Mar. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2016
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 33 ] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . On March 4, 2016, Deion Thompson requested the appointment of counsel for assistance with filing a habeas motion under Title 28 United States Code Section 2255 in light of the Supreme Court's June 2015 decision in Johnson v. United States. 1 This Court has reviewed the merits of Thompson's potential Johnson claim and DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel. I. Discussion The appointment of counsel in a civ
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 33 ] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . On March 4, 2016, Deion Thompson requested the appointment of counsel for assistance with filing a habeas motion under Title 28 United States Code Section 2255 in light of the Supreme Court's June 2015 decision in Johnson v. United States. 1 This Court has reviewed the merits of Thompson's potential Johnson claim and DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel. I. Discussion The appointment of counsel in a civi..
More
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 33]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
On March 4, 2016, Deion Thompson requested the appointment of counsel for assistance with filing a habeas motion under Title 28 United States Code Section 2255 in light of the Supreme Court's June 2015 decision in Johnson v. United States.1 This Court has reviewed the merits of Thompson's potential Johnson claim and DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel.
I. Discussion
The appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitutional right and is justified only by exceptional circumstances.2
Thompson would only have a potentially viable Johnson claim if his base offense level was increased because of a prior conviction that was a crime of violence only under the residual clause.
In calculating Deion Thompson's base offense level, the pre-sentence report listed two "felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense . . . to wit: Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of a Police Officer in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Case # CR-05-461329; and . . . Trafficking in Drugs in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Case # CR-08-516320."3
The controlled substance offense, Trafficking in Drugs, is not affected by the Johnson decision because it was not classified as a crime of violence. Further, a closer examination of Thompson's PSR reveals that he was sentenced for another controlled substance offense: Drug Possession (F-2) in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Case # CR-05-461329. Thus, regardless of whether or not the Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of Police Officer is no longer a crime of violence post-Johnson, Thompson's guidelines calculation would not be affected because the pre-sentence report still lists two felony convictions for a controlled substance offense.
Thompson has not shown that he has a meritorious Johnson claim. He cannot demonstrate that his civil § 2255 proceeding is an exceptional circumstance warranting appointment of counsel.
II. Conclusion
For the reasons above, this Court DENIES Defendant's motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
