LITTRELL v. CARAWAY

Filing 8

Entry Concerning Selected Matters - The petitioner's request to be supplied with a copy of the docket sheet [dkt. 7] is granted. The clerk shall include a copy of the requested document with the petitioner's copy of this Entry. The cler k shall also include a copy of the 17-page petition for writ of habeas corpus (not including the many exhibits) with the petitioner's copy of this Entry. The motion for appointment of counsel [dkt. 5] is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/23/2013. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

ANTHONY LITTRELL,
Petitioner,
vs.
J. F. CARAWAY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:13-cv-00240-JMS-MJD

Entry Concerning Selected Matters
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are pending, makes
the following rulings:
1.

The petitioner’s request to be supplied with a copy of the docket sheet [dkt. 7] is

granted. The clerk shall include a copy of the requested document with the petitioner’s copy of
this Entry.
2.

The clerk shall also include a copy of the 17-page petition for writ of habeas

corpus (not including the many exhibits) with the petitioner’s copy of this Entry.
3.

The petitioner’s in forma pauperis is of no effect in relation to the filing fee,

which has been paid, but that request is understood as demonstrating in conjunction with his
motion for appointment of counsel that he lacks the means to employ counsel in a conventional
fashion.
4.

The petitioner=s motion to appoint counsel has been considered.

a.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions.

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 755, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2568 (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).
b.

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 Cir. 1983).
c.

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 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. The first two of these factors emerge from the extensive collateral
challenges the petitioner has already made in the trial court and elsewhere. In addition,
the petitioner has the means (writing materials, etc.) to continue to present his claims in
this action and the petitioner is literate and seems fully aware of the proceedings
involving his conviction and sentence in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
d.

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 [dkt.
5] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

07/23/2013

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
ANTHONY C. LITTRELL
30564-044
TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808