Pennell v. Pash
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 38 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah on 6/5/2018. (NEP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL M. PENNELL,
Petitioner,
v.
RONDA J. PASH,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:16-CV-352 SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s second motion for appointment of counsel.
(Doc. 38). After review of this action, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel will be
denied without prejudice.
In deciding whether to appoint counsel, this Court considers “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.” Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558–59 (8th Cir.2000)
(internal quotations omitted). “[T]here is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in
habeas proceedings.” Id. at 558 (internal quotations omitted). Petitioner has pursued his claims
at times pro se, or sometimes in combination with his assigned counsel, in his direct and postconviction proceedings. In this case, the record is fully developed, the case is not particularly
legally or factually complex, and Petitioner has already filed both his petition for habeas relief
and his reply to the government’s answer with no apparent difficulties. Therefore, the Court finds
that the appointment of counsel would not benefit Petitioner and the Court to such an extent that
the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc.
38) is DENIED without prejudice.
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of June, 2018.
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?