Jamerson v. Wallace
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail to petitioner a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 form. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall use the provided form and file an amended petition within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to stay [ECF No. 3] is DENIED. ( Response to Court due by 4/7/2014.) Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on March 7, 2014. (MCB) (Memorandum and Order and form Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus sent to petitioner this date.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MICHAEL C. JAMERSON,
No. 4:14CV241 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition has not been drafted in a manner that complies with the
Federal Rules, and I will require petitioner to file an amended petition. Additionally, I
will grant his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but I will deny his motions
to stay proceedings and for appointment of counsel.
The Federal and Local Rules require habeas petitioners to utilize the standard form
when drafting habeas petitions. Petitioner has deviated from the standard form. And
petitioner interspersed several exhibits into the petition. Petitioner must use the form or
substantially copy the form when drafting his claims.
And petitioner must file his
exhibits separately. Finally, petitioner must sign the petition under penalty of perjury.
Petitioner moves the Court to stay the instant petition because he has filed a Rule
91 habeas petition in the Circuit Court for Mississippi County, Missouri. Jamerson v.
Missouri, No. 14MI-CV00085 (33d Cir.). The Court takes notice of the state court’s
files, and the court notes that the petition was denied on February 20, 2014. As a result,
the motion to stay is denied. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Rule 91 petition would
have had any effect on the instant case.
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).
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); Johnson v.
Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005. After
considering these factors, I believe that the facts and legal issues involved are not so
complicated that the appointment of counsel is warranted at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail to petitioner a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall use the provided form and file
an amended petition within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to stay [ECF No. 3] is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for appointment of
counsel [ECF Nos. 4, 7] are DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2014.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?