Whitt v. Steele

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 11 MOTION for Reconsideration re 10 Order filed by Petitioner Jamel Whitt. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to reconsider motion for appointment of counsel [#11] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on July 23, 2014. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMEL WHITT,
Petitioner,
vs.
TROY STEELE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12CV1595 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Missouri state prisoner Jamel Whitt seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. Whitt is currently serving terms of imprisonment following
his conviction for the crimes of first-degree murder and armed criminal action.
Whitt filed a motion to appoint counsel, citing mental illness and borderline
intellectual functioning, which I denied after reviewing his well-written petition for
habeas corpus. Whitt now requests reconsideration of that denial.
In support of his motion for reconsideration, Whitt has provided an affidavit
from another inmate in the same correctional facility in which Whitt is
incarcerated. That inmate asserts that Whitt is wholly illiterate and had assistance
from a “prison law clerk” who was authorized to submit Whitt’s § 2254 petition by
the prison officials.

There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil
case. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984).
In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors
including (1) whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations
supporting his prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit
from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate
and present the facts related to the plaintiff's allegations; and (4) whether the
factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Battle v.
Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990); In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040,
1043B44 (8th Cir. 1986); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322B23 (8th Cir.
1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
Although Whitt may be unable to assert his habeas claims himself, it appears
from the record that whoever assisted him with the petition did so in a manner
protective of Whitt’s interests. The motion for reconsideration does not assert that
any grounds should have been raised in addition to or differently from those raised
in the petition. At this stage, I cannot say that Whitt will substantially benefit from
the appointment of counsel or that there is a need for further investigation into the
facts of this case.

-2-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to reconsider motion
for appointment of counsel [# 11] is denied.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of July, 2014.

-3-