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)

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. § 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