Ildefonso v. Gage

Filing 17

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Appointment of Counsel without prejudice t reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(EJL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ARLYN P. ILDEFONSO,
Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN GAGE, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3110

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This matter is before me on the petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel. (Filing No. 16.) “[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 the petitioner’s, Arlyn P. Ildefonso’s (Ildefonso),
motion, there is no need for the appointment of counsel at this time. I will reconsider
Ildefonso’s request for the assistance of counsel after the state court records have
been reviewed in this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Ildefonso’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (Filing No. 16) is denied without prejudice to reassertion.
Dated December 17, 2013.
BY THE COURT

__________________________________________
Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior District Judge