Perkins v. Schmitt

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Perkins's motion for appointment of counsel [# 3 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 9/14/15. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KENNETH PERKINS,
Petitioner,
vs.
DAVID SCHMITT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:14CV1505 CDP
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner Kenneth Perkins has filed a motion to appoint counsel to assist
him with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because
the factual and legal proceedings are relatively simple and because Perkins has
shown that he is capable of self-representation, his motion will be denied.
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).
In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors
including (1) whether the petitioner has presented non-frivolous allegations
supporting his prayer for relief; (2) whether the petitioner will substantially benefit
from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate
and present the facts related to the petitioner’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); In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1043
(8th Cir. 1986); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322–23 (8th Cir. 1986);
Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
Upon consideration of the above-listed factors, I find that appointment of
counsel is not warranted. The claims and underlying facts of this case are
relatively straightforward and do not involve any complex legal issues. There
likewise does not appear to be any reason to further investigate the facts related to
the petitioner’s allegations.
Additionally, based on Perkins’s presentation of the issues in his petition and
other submissions to the Court, he seems capable of litigating this action on his
own. Therefore, his motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Perkins’s motion for appointment of
counsel [# 3] is denied.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of September, 2015.