Reyna v. Roberts et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 4 for the appointment of counsel is denied. Petitioner's motion 5 to grant the writ as an uncontested pleading is denied. Respondents' motion 13 to extend the time for filing a response to and including August 19, 2011, is granted. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 7/19/2011. (Mailed to pro se party Israel Reyna by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ISRAEL REYNA,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION
No. 10-3254-SAC

vs.
RAY ROBERTS, et al.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on petitioner’s motion
to appoint counsel (Doc. 4), his motion to grant the writ as an
uncontested matter (Doc. 5), and respondents’ motion for an
extension of time (Doc. 13).
There is no constitutional right to the appointment of
counsel in a federal habeas corpus action.
Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987).

Pennsylvania v.

Rather, the decision whether

to appoint counsel rests in the discretion of the court.

Swazo

v. Wyoming Dep’t. of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, 23
F.3d

332,

333

(10th

Cir.

1994).

See

also

18

U.S.C.

§3006A(a)(2)(B)(the court may appoint counsel in action under
§ 2254 where “the interests of justice so require”).
In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a civil action,

the court should consider "the litigant's claims, the nature of
the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant's ability
to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues
raised by the claims."

Long v. Shillinger, 927 F.2d 525, 526-27

(10th Cir. 1991).
The court has considered the motion and declines to appoint
counsel.

Petitioner states he cannot afford counsel, but it

does not appear that he has sought assistance from resources
available to prisoners in Kansas custody.

Nor does the court

find any compelling reason to appoint counsel.

It appears

petitioner is able to clearly state his claims for relief, and
that the legal issues are not unusually complicated.
Petitioner’s motion to grant the writ as an uncontested
pleading is denied.

The record shows respondents have been

granted additional time to respond following properly-filed
motions to the court.

The writ is not uncontested, nor has

there been a default.
Finally, respondents seek an extension of time to and
including August 19, 2011, for filing a response.

The court

finds good cause is shown and will grant the request.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED petitioner’s motion
for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 4) is denied.

Petitioner

may renew the motion upon a showing that he has sought counsel.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner’s motion to grant the writ
as an uncontested pleading (Doc. 5) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED respondents’ motion to extend the
time for filing a response to and including August 19, 2011
(Doc. 13), is granted.
Copies of this order shall be transmitted to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this 19th day of July, 2011.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
United States Senior District Judge

3