Taylor v. Carich
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 19) is DENIED. If the Court later determines that counsel is required, it will issue an appropriate order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman on 12/20/2013. (KMS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:13CV961 TIA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket
No. 19). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On May 17, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas
corpus, raising one ground for federal habeas relief. Respondent filed a Response to Order to Show
Cause on August 23, 2013. Petitioner requests that the Court appoint him an attorney.
“[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 one ground for habeas
relief, and it does not appear to be factually or legally complex. Further, Petitioner has articulated
his claim in a clear, concise manner. At this stage of the litigation, legal counsel is unnecessary.
Thus, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket
No. 19) is DENIED. If the Court later determines that counsel is required, it will issue an
/s/ Terry I. Adelman
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 20th
day of December, 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?