Revels v. Norman
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 4 ) is DENIED. If the Court later determines that counsel is necessary, it will issue an appropriate order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman on 6/28/13. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:12CV1903 TIA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
On October 15, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas
corpus, raising four grounds for federal habeas relief. Respondent filed his Response on May 5, 2012.
Petitioner then filed a supplemental pleading, further articulating his claims. On October 26, 2012,
Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel requesting that the Court appoint him an
“[T]here is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in habeas proceedings . . .”
McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997). In order to determine whether appointment
of counsel is appropriate, the court must consider “the factual and legal complexity of the case, and
the petitioner’s ability both to investigate and to articulate his claims without court appointed
counsel.” Id. (citations omitted). In the instant case, Petitioner raises only four grounds for habeas
relief, and they do not appear to be factually or legally complex. Further, Petitioner has thus far been
able to articulate his claims in a clear, concise manner. Because Petitioner has demonstrated an ability
to adequately present his claims without an attorney, his motion for appointment of counsel will be
denied at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No.
4) is DENIED. If the Court later determines that counsel is necessary, it will issue an appropriate
/s/ Terry I. Adelman
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of June, 2013.
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?