WASHINGTON v. WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
ENTRY AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 3 is denied. The petitioner's custodian, named in his official capacity only, is substituted as the respondent in this action. The petitioner's custodian is directed to answer the allegations of the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and in doing so shall show cause why the relief sought by the petitioner should not be granted. This shall be done within twenty (20) days after the date this Entry is docketed. The petitioenr shall have twenty (20) days after service of such answer or return to order to show cause on him in which to reply. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/9/2012.(JLM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Valley Correctional Facility,
Entry and Order to Show Cause
The petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel has been considered. The Sixth
Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Coleman v.
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 755 (1991). However, a district court does have the
authority to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever it
"determines that the interests of justice so require. . . ." 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B).
Whether to appoint counsel is committed to the discretion of the trial court. United
States v. Evans, 51 F.3d 287 (10th Cir. 1995). Factors which the court may consider
include: (1) whether the merits of the indigent's claim are colorable; (2) ability of the
indigent to investigate crucial facts; (3) whether the nature of the evidence indicates
that the truth will more likely be exposed where both sides are represented by
counsel; (4) capability of the indigent to present his case; and (5) complexity of the
legal issues raised by the complaint. Wilson v. Duckworth, 716 F.2d 415, 418 (7th
Application of the foregoing factors in this case indicates that the petitioner=s
claims are not particularly complex, that there is no likelihood that an evidentiary
hearing will be necessary, that no discovery or other investigation will be required,
that due allowance to the petitioner=s pro se status will be made and that the
petitioner has at least thus far demonstrated exceptional ability to express and
present his claims. In addition, the petitioner has the means (writing materials,
etc.) to continue to present his claims in this action, the petitioner is literate and
seems fully aware of the proceedings involving his conviction and sentence in the
Indiana state courts, and although an order to show cause is being issued, the
respondent has not yet filed an answer to the petition, meaning that the court and
the petitioner do not yet know whether, and to what extent or on what basis, his
claims for relief are contested here.
These are not circumstances in which it is in the interest of justice to appoint
counsel for the petitioner, and for this reason his motion for appointment of counsel
 is denied.
The petitioner’s custodian, named in his official capacity only, is substituted as
the respondent in this action.
The petitioner=s custodian is directed to answer the allegations of the
petitioner=s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and in doing so shall show cause
why the relief sought by the petitioner should not be granted. This shall be done
within twenty (20) days after the date this Entry is docketed. The petitioner shall
have twenty (20) days after service of such answer or return to order to show
cause on him in which to reply.
A copy of this Entry and Order to Show Cause shall be sent to the Indiana
Attorney General through a Notice of Electronic Filing ("NEF") generated by the
court's CM/ECF case management system. The Indiana Attorney General has
previously been provided with a copy of the habeas petition itself.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?