COPLEY v. VARTELAS

Filing 5

ORDER denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

CRAIG O. COPLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
HELENE M. VARTELAS,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:16-cv-00343-DBH

ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
In this habeas action, Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) Title
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) states in pertinent part: “Whenever the United States magistrate judge
or the court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for
any financially eligible person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of
title 28.” In this case, Petitioner apparently seeks relief under section 2241.
In U.S. v. Mala, 7 F.3d 1058 (1st Cir. 1993), the First Circuit considered whether a
defendant was entitled to counsel in the event he filed a habeas action based on the alleged
ineffective assistance of his post-conviction counsel. In concluding that the defendant presented
the “rare section 2255 case in which the appointment of counsel is warranted,” the Court cited
three factors: (1) the defendant had demonstrated a “fair likelihood of success on the constitutional
claim,” (2) the claim was “factually complex and legally intricate,” and (3) “the facts [were] largely
undeveloped and [defendant] (who is both incarcerated and indigent) [was] severely hampered in
his ability to investigate them.” 7 F.3d at 1063-64. Because section 3006A applies the same
standard for the appointment of counsel to section 2241, 2254, and 2255 cases, the standard set
forth by the First Circuit in Mala applies to Petitioner’s section 2241 petition.

Application of the factors to Petitioner’s case militates against the appointment of counsel
in this case. Most importantly, the Court cannot conclude based on Petitioner’s filing that he has
a likelihood of success on a constitutional claim. In fact, Petitioner’s filing suggests a question as
to whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel.

CERTIFICATE
Any objections to this report shall be filed in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 59 and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72.

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 6th day of July, 2016.