Order Partially Granting Extension to File Objections to the Report and Recommendation — United States v. Gladys Harun (3:23-cr-3)

Summary

Order in Gladys Harun v. United States of America, CR 323-003, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Dublin Division, Doc. 80, dated May 12, 2026. The Court grants in part the Petitioner's request (Doc. no. 79) for an extension of time to file objections to the Court's April 30, 2026 Report and Recommendation. It states that there is no automatic constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings and that it does not find exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel. The Court nevertheless grants an extension of time through and including June 22, 2026, to file objections.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

    Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE            Document 80       Filed 05/12/26     Page 1 of 2




                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                     FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

                                     DUBLIN DIVISION

GLADYS HARUN,                                  )
                                               )
              Petitioner,                      )
                                               )
       v.                                      )           CR 323-003
                                               )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                      )
                                               )
              Respondent.                      )
                                           _________

                                           ORDER
                                           _________

       The Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file

objections to the Court’s April 30, 2026 Report and Recommendation. (Doc. no. 79.)

Petitioner, who is no longer incarcerated, requests nearly five times the standard fourteen-day

period of time to object so that she can “seek and obtain appointment of counsel” to help her

with her collateral attack. (Id. at 1.) There was no separate motion for appointment of counsel

filed along with the request for an extension of time to object.

       In any event, there is no automatic constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings.

See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789,

794 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 2006)); Hooks

v. Wainwright, 775 F.2d 1433, 1438 (11th Cir. 1985). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), the

Court may appoint counsel for an indigent litigant seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but

such requests are discretionary when “due process or the ‘interests of justice’” so require.
    Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE           Document 80       Filed 05/12/26    Page 2 of 2




Hooks, 775 F.2d at 1438; Norris v. Wainwright, 588 F.2d 130, 133 (5th Cir. 1979). 1 Moreover,

appointment of counsel is “a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances[.]”

McCall v. Cook, 495 F. App’x 29, 31 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

       Even if Petitioner had filed a motion, the Court does not find any exceptional

circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel. See id. Despite previously filing

voluminous pro se motions full of citations to case law and financial records, Petitioner now

claims she is unable to understand and address the analysis in the Report and Recommendation

of the very issues she raised. The record is clear Petitioner has had no problem communicating

with the Court and presenting her arguments for relief. Thus, even if Petitioner had submitted

a motion requesting appointed counsel, she is not entitled to such an appointment.

       Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court grants an extension of time through

and including June 22, 2026, to file objections to the Court’s April 30, 2026 Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. no. 79.)

       SO ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2026, at Augusta, Georgia.




       1
         In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions that were handed down
prior the close of business on September 30, 1981.



                                              2


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.80.0.pdf

Size

143,738 bytes

SHA-256

2e75df9fd8e8f8a044cb8f20680f9a8e27c81b4eff41a62227ac3be7e7b983c5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.80.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)