Ultsch v. United States

Background

Timothy James Ultsch, who was representing himself, filed a motion seeking two forms of relief: an extension of time to reply to the government’s opposition to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and appointment of a Criminal Justice Act attorney under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. A habeas petition is a court filing that challenges a person’s custody.

Ultsch’s reply originally was due April 9, 2020. The court had previously extended that deadline to May 11, 2020. Ultsch stated that he had mailed a request for another extension to June 10, 2020, but the court had not received or docketed that letter. He also reported having limited access to a typewriter and legal research materials during a COVID-19 lockdown at FCI Otisville.

Rulings

The court extended Ultsch’s deadline to file his reply to July 19, 2020.

The court separately denied without prejudice Ultsch’s request for appointed counsel. “Without prejudice” means the denial did not bar a later request. The court considered the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Ultsch’s arguments, and his ability to present the petition, but found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at that time.

The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail Ultsch a copy of the order. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The order addressed the extension and counsel requests; it did not decide the underlying petition challenging custody.