Harper v. Steele

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 4 Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 5/15/13. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD HARPER
Petitioner,
v.
TROY STEELE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12-CV-1726 SNLJ-NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. [ Doc. 4 ]
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. 4].

Dated this 15th day of May 2013.

/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2