Welton v. Smith

Filing 18

ORDER denying 14 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Appoint Counsel (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 09/22/2014. (TLU) CC: Welton. (kt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Albert J. Welton, III,
Petitioner,
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 14-3044 ADM/HB

Warden Michelle Smith,
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
Albert J. Welton, III, pro se.
Matthew Frank and James B. Early, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, St. Paul, MN, and
Lee W. Barry, III, Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on
Petitioner Albert J. Welton’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 14] of Magistrate Judge
Graham’s August 6, 2014 Order [Docket No. 5] denying Welton’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
[Docket No. 2].
II. DISCUSSION
A petitioner does not have a right to counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 556 (1987); McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th
Cir. 1997). In such cases, the court has discretion to appoint counsel if the court finds it would
be beneficial to its decision. McCall, 114 F.3d at 756; Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir.
1996). When considering Welton’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Judge Graham found, based on
the lack of complexity in Welton’s claims and cogent written communications submitted by
Welton, appointment of counsel was not warranted. See Order at 2. In his Motion for

Reconsideration, Welton argues Judge Graham failed to recognize his communications are
effective only because he is receiving assistance from a “jailhouse lawyer.” Without this
assistance, Welton claims he cannot effectively represent himself as a pro se litigant. Based on
the record, Welton’s filings do not demonstrate that appointment of counsel would substantially
benefit the Court or Welton. Accordingly, Welton’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Graham’s August 6, 2014
Order [Docket No. 5] is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 22, 2014.

2