Ortiz v. Rine

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 11 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LAWRENCE ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
SABOTKA RINE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3139

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
(Filing No. 11.) “There is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in habeas
proceedings; instead, [appointment] is committed to the discretion of the trial court.”
McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997). 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.) The court has
carefully reviewed the record and finds that there is no need for the appointment of counsel
at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (Filing No. 11) is denied without prejudice to reassertion.
DATED this 18th day of December, 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.