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)

Download PDF
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?