Hernandez v. Sabatka-Rine

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel. It is ordered that petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 11) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(SLP)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JUAN ANTONIO HERNANDEZ,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
MRS. DIANE SABATKA-RINE,
)
Warden, Nebraska State
)
Penitentiary,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

4:14CV3172

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s Motion
to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 11).

“[T]here is neither a

constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in habeas
proceedings; instead, [appointment] is committed to the
discretion of the trial court.”
756 (8th Cir. 1997).

McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754,

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).

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
there is no need for the appointment of counsel at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel (Filing No. 11) is denied without prejudice to
reassertion.
DATED this 14th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

* 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.

-2-