Anderson v. Lawrence
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PETITIONERS MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. [Doc. 10] Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A Baker on 12/30/11. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRADLEY HALL ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
SCOTT LAWRENCE,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:10-CV-01212-NAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. [Doc. 10].
Respondent did not respond to the motion. Having fully considered the arguments set forth by
Petitioner, the Court denies the motion.
Discussion
There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in habeas corpus proceedings.
Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). In Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571 (8th
Cir. 1994), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the circumstances in which the
appointment of counsel is appropriate. The court stated:
A magistrate judge or district judge may appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner if
“the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A(a)(2), (a)(2)(B) (West
Supp. 1993). If a district court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition, the
interests of justice require that the court appoint counsel for the petitioner. See
Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts (hereinafter “Habeas Rules”). If no evidentiary hearing is necessary, the
appointment of counsel is discretionary.
When exercising its discretion, a district court should first determine whether a
pro se habeas petitioner has presented a nonfrivolous claim. Battle [v.
Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990)]. If the petitioner has presented
only claims that are frivolous or clearly without merit, the district court should
dismiss the case on the merits without appointing counsel. See Habeas Rule 4. If
the petitioner has presented a nonfrivolous claim, the district court should then
determine whether, given the particular circumstances of the case, the
appointment of counsel would benefit the petitioner and the court to such an
extent that “the interests of justice so require” it. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2); see
also Battle, 902 F.2d at 702. To determine whether appointment of counsel is
required for habeas petitioners with nonfrivolous claims, a district court should
consider the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, the
petitioner's ability to investigate and present his claim, and any other relevant
factors. See Battle, 902 F.2d at 702; Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23
(8th Cir. 1986).
Id. at 573.
In considering the standards set forth in Abdullah and the claims raised in the petition, the
Court finds that the appointment of counsel would not benefit Petitioner or the Court to such an
extent that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. Moreover, the Court finds
that the petition contains claims that are not legally or factually complex and Petitioner has
demonstrated an ability to present his claims in a clear and concise fashion. Therefore, at this
time, the Court will not appoint counsel to represent Petitioner. Petitioner’s motion to appoint
counsel is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is
DENIED. [Doc. 10].
Dated this 30th day of December, 2011.
/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?