Pollock, Jr. v. Warden S. Kallis

Background

Charles W. Pollock, Jr. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and was proceeding without a lawyer. He sought appointed counsel based largely on a temporary Bureau of Prisons lockdown. The court noted that civil litigants generally have no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel, but that a court may request counsel for a person unable to afford one. Relevant considerations include the issues’ factual and legal complexity, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether conflicting testimony is likely.

The court found that Pollock had submitted numerous filings, including letters and motions, and that those filings showed an ability to explain his position and a basic understanding of court procedures. Although the court recognized his limited financial circumstances and the challenges of confinement, it concluded that counsel was not warranted at that stage.

Rulings on the Motions

The court denied Pollock’s motions to appoint counsel without prejudice. The court granted Warden S. Kallis’s request for an approximately 15-day extension to respond to the petition and ruled that the response filed on July 10, 2020, was timely. Because the response was timely, the court denied Pollock’s first motion to strike it.

Pollock reported that he had not received the complete response and exhibits. The court required the respondent, by August 21, 2020, to state whether sealed Exhibit E—a presentence report—had been sent to Pollock. If it had not been sent, the respondent had to provide authority supporting the court’s ability to consider an exhibit that was not served on Pollock. The court also granted Pollock’s request for an extension and set September 30, 2020, as the deadline for any reply supporting his petition.

The court treated Pollock’s second motion to strike as a separate motion rather than an amendment to the first. That motion argued that the response and exhibits did not show the required knowledge element discussed in Rehaif v. United States. The court did not decide the second motion in this order. Instead, it set August 31, 2020, for the respondent’s response and September 15, 2020, for Pollock’s reply. After those submissions, no further filings would be permitted unless authorized by court order.

Effect of the Order

This was a procedural order about counsel, filing deadlines, service of an exhibit, and briefing. It did not decide the merits of Pollock’s § 2241 petition or the merits of his second motion to strike. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung signed the order on August 7, 2020.