Pena v. Thompson

Filing 27

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel. 1. Pena shall file a memorandum in support of his petition by July 25, 2014.2. Thompson shall file a memorandum in opposition by August 22, 2014. See Order for further details. (MacDonald, Gail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ULYSSES PENA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL A. THOMPSON,
Respondent.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 13-cv-11615-IT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
June 24, 2014
TALWANI, D.J.
Presently before this court is Petitioner Ulysses Pena’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel [#23]. There is not an absolute constitutional right to legal representation in a civil case.
DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, the Criminal Justice Act
(“CJA”) grants this court authority to appoint an attorney for an eligible individual seeking
habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. §
3006A(a)(2)(B). Relevant considerations include: “the indigent’s ability to conduct whatever
factual investigation is necessary to support his or her claim; the complexity of the factual and
legal issues involved; and the capability of the indigent litigant to present the case.” Cookish v.
Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (citations omitted).
Appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case. In support of his motion, Pena
states merely that he is “unable to represent himself or file a memorandum” and that he is
“unqualified to represent himself on any oral argument.” Mot. Appoint. Counsel [#23]. In
essence, Pena lacks legal training. Lack of legal training, however, is insufficient to justify the
appointment of counsel. Lucien v. Spencer, 534 F. Supp. 2d 207, 209–10 (D. Mass. 2008) (citing

DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 23–24; Cookish, 787 F.2d at 2–3).
The sole ground for relief set forth in Pena’s § 2254 petition is that he was denied the
right to counsel when he was forced to proceed pro se at his probation violation hearing. Pena
will be required to undertake little factual investigation to develop this claim. Similarly, the
factual and legal issues are not complex. Finally, Pena appears adequately equipped to present
the case. His filings with this court are coherent and inform this court of the relief Pena seeks.
For the foregoing reasons, Pena’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [#23] is DENIED.
This court issued a scheduling order on March 12, 2014 requiring Pena to file a memorandum in
support of his petition by April 11, 2014 and Respondent Thompson to file a memorandum in
opposition by May 9, 2014. Pena failed to file a supporting memorandum while his motion to
appoint counsel was pending. In light the decision on Pena’s motion to appoint counsel, this
court now issues the following briefing schedule:
1.

Pena shall file a memorandum in support of his petition by July 25, 2014.

2.

Thompson shall file a memorandum in opposition by August 22, 2014.

A copy of this Order shall be mailed to Pena.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

2