Jenkins v. Morgan et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM ORDER - that petitioner David Jenkins' motion for representation by counsel (D.I. 19 ) is DENIED without prejudice to renew. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 2/7/13. (rwc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE DAVID JENKINS, Petitioner, v. PHIL MORGAN, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) Civ. No. 11-69-SLR ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington this 1-tk day of February, 2013; IT IS ORDERED that petitioner David Jenkins' motion for representation by counsel (D.1. 19) is DENIED without prejudice to renew, for the reasons that follow: 1. It is well-settled that a petitioner does not have an automatic constitutional or statutory right to representation in a federal habeas proceeding. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Roberson, 194 F.3d 408, 415 n.5 (3d Cir. 1999). Nevertheless, a court may seek representation by counsel for a petitioner who demonstrates" special circumstances indicating the likelihood of substantial prejudice to [petitioner] resulting . . . from [petitioner's] probable inability without such assistance to present the facts and legal issues to the court in a complex but arguably meritorious case." See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 154 (3d Cir. 1993)(citing Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22,26 (3d Cir. 1984); 18 U.S.C. ยง 3006A (a)(2)(B)(representation by counsel may be provided when a court determines that the "interests of justice so require"). 2. Here, petitioner requests representation by counsel because he is "at a loss" on how to proceed; believes appointing counsel would be in his best interest; and believes counsel would be in a better position to file a certificate of appealability in this court or in the Third Circuit. However, after viewing these reasons in conjunction with petitioner's other filings in this case, the court concludes that the interests of justice do not require representation by counsel at this time. It also does not appear that expert testimony will be necessary or that the ultimate resolution of the petition will depend upon credibility determinations. UNITED STAT S DIS rRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?