Howard v. Houston

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

STUART D. HOWARD,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT P. HOUSTON,
Respondent.

4:12CV3194

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Filing No.
18.) “[T]here is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in habeas proceedings;
instead, [appointment of counsel] is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” McCall
v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). As a general rule, counsel
will not be appointed unless the case is unusually complex or the petitioner’s ability to
investigate and articulate the claims is unusually impaired or an evidentiary hearing is
required. See, e.g., Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558-59 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531
U.S. 984 (2000); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); see
also Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
(requiring appointment of counsel if an evidentiary hearing is warranted). Upon review of the
pleadings and Petitioner’s Motion, there is no need for the appointment of counsel at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing
No. 18) is denied.
DATED this 4th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites.
Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the
fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the
opinion of the court.