Edwards v. Roberts et al
ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's second motion 4 for appointment of counsel and related motion 5 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied without prejudice. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 7/13/2011. (Mailed to pro se party Jerome Edwards by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CASE NO. 11-3099-SAC
RAYMOND ROBERTS, et al.,
O R D E R
Petitioner proceeds pro se on a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and has paid the $5.00 district court
On June 15, 2011, the court issued a show cause order,
requiring respondents to file an Answer and Return.
In that same
order, the court denied without prejudice petitioner’s motion for
appointment of counsel.
Before the court is petitioner’s second motion for appointment
Also before the court is petitioner’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.
Given petitioner’s payment of the
district court filing fee, the court liberally construes this in
forma pauperis motion as submitted in support of petitioner’s
renewed motion for appointment of counsel.
Petitioner basically argues the factors for appointment of
Petitioner titles his motion in the alternative as a motion
for reconsideration (of the court’s decision to deny petitioner’s
first motion for appointment of counsel), or as a request for
“amendment” of the district court’s “judgment” to deny appointment
of counsel. The court finds no need to separately address these
counsel weigh in his favor in this case.
The court is not
Petitioner’s renewed request for appointment of counsel
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s second motion for
appointment of counsel (Doc. 4) and related motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) are denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 13th day of July 2011 at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
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?