Henley v. Cassady
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 5 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 10/20/2015. (NEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SCOTT HENLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
JAY CASSADY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:15CV892 RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner' s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 5). Upon review of the motion and the pleadings in this case, the Court will deny the
motion.
On June 5, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus in federal court. He filed a motion for appointment of counsel on June 17, 2015,
asserting that he is unable to pay attorney' s fees, obtain legal counsel, or litigate his habeas case
prose.
" [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, while Petitioner raises six
grounds for habeas relief, they do not appear to be factually or legally complex. Further, review
of the Petition demonstrates that Petitioner thus far is able to articulate his claims in a clear,
concise manner. Because Petitioner has demonstrated the ability to adequately present his claims
without an attorney, his motion for appointment of counsel will be denied at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner' s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 5)
is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 20th day of October, 2015.
a~d~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?