Chambers v. Wallace

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel [# 17 ] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's motion for extension of time [# 20 ] is granted in part. Chambers must make the disclosures required by the Case Management Order no later than July 21, 2014. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 06/12/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES CHAMBERS,
Petitioner,
vs.
IAN WALLACE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13-CV-02212 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before me are a motion to appoint counsel and a motion for
extension of time filed by Petitioner Charles Edward Chambers. I will deny
Chambers’ motion for appointed counsel at this time because I believe that he is
able to effectively present his arguments and manage his own case. I will grant, in
part, Chambers’ motion for extension of time.
I.

Appointment of Counsel
If no evidentiary hearing is necessary, then the appointment of counsel for a

habeas petitioner is discretionary. See Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th
Cir. 1994). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several
factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations
supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff and the court will
benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) the pro se litigant’s ability to

investigate facts and present claims; and (4) the complexity of the factual and legal
issues. See Battle v. Amrontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990); Abdullah, 18
F.3d at 573. After considering these factors, I find that the facts and legal issues
are not so complicated that the appointment of counsel is warranted. Chambers
has demonstrated that he understands the issues in this case and that he is capable
of presenting the facts and law related to his case. Neither Chambers nor this court
would substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel.
Chambers argues he is entitled to representation by counsel because an
evidentiary hearing will be required in this case. I have not yet considered whether
an evidentiary hearing will be necessary and will determine this at a later date. If I
decide that such a hearing is appropriate, I will appoint counsel for Chambers at
that time.
II.

Extension of Time
In addition to requesting counsel, Chambers has also asked for more time to

reply to Repondent’s response to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should
not be granted. Chambers argues that he has limited access (2-3 hours per week)
to the law library at the Southeast Correctional Center as well as limited access to
computers. He also states that the library has recently been closed on numerous
occasions because of the absence of certain librarians.
–2–

I find these factors persuasive, but Chambers has already received one sixtyday extension. Therefore, I will Grant Chambers’s motion in part. Chambers must
file his reply no later than July 21, 2014.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel [#17] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for extension of
time [#20] is granted in part. Chambers must make the disclosures required by the
Case Management Order no later than July 21, 2014.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 12th day of June, 2014.

–3–