Baumruk v. Steele

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsels motion to reconsider the approved budget for attorneys fees and expenses is DENIED without prejudice. [ECF No. 31]. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/9/13. (JWJ)

Baumruk v. Steele

Doc. 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KENNETH BAUMRUK,
Plaintiff,
v.
TROY STEELE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV804 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on appointed counsel’s motion to reconsider the
approved budget for attorney’s fees and expenses. Counsel argue that the Court has failed
to consider the duty of counsel to investigate potential claims under Martinez v. Ryan, in
which the Supreme Court of the United States held that “[i]nadequate assistance of counsel
at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner’s procedural
default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial.” 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1315 (2012). Counsel
further suggest that the massive record of the state court proceedings will require an
extraordinary amount of effort to wade through in order to adequately present petitioner’s
claims for relief.
The Court has authorized up to 550 attorney hours in this action. The Court continues
to believe that this is sufficient time to investigate petitioner’s claims and present them to the
Court effectively. At any rate, the Court believes it is premature at this time for counsel to
seek a budget modification. Counsel can move for a budget modification at a later stage in

Dockets.Justia.com

this case. The Court, however, will not increase the budget without good cause. Moreover,
counsel should seek to be as efficient as possible in preparing this case. Other counsel who
practice capital litigation in this Court delegate menial or repetitive tasks to law students or
paralegals, who are paid out of the CJA fund at a reasonable rate. Not every task in a capital
case requires the eyes of counsel. Any future request for a budget modification must contain
a statement regarding counsel’s attempts to increase their efficiency in preparing this action.
Finally, the Court reminds counsel that “CJA service is first a professional
responsibility, and no lawyer is entitled to full compensation for services for the public
good.” In re Carlyle, 644 F.3d 694, 699 (8th Cir. 2011) (C.J. Riley). Some amount of pro
bono work is demanded of counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel’s motion to reconsider the approved budget
for attorney’s fees and expenses is DENIED without prejudice. [ECF No. 31]
Dated this 9th day of August, 2013.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-