Griswold v. Britten

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel 10 is denied. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed IFP 12 and motion for status of IFP motion 13 are denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA RICHARD A. GRISWOLD, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) TECUMSEH STATE CORRECTIONAL ) INSTITUTION, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________) 8:10CV55 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion to appoint counsel (Filing No. 10), motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Filing No. 12) and motion for status of IFP motion (Filing No. 13). "[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. In addition, petitioner has already paid the $5.00 filing fee in this matter. (See Docket Sheet.) Therefore, his motion for leave to proceed IFP and motion for status of IFP motion will be denied as moot. IT IS ORDERED: 1. 10) is denied. 2. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed IFP Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel (Filing No. (Filing No. 12) and motion for status of IFP motion (Filing No. 13) are denied as moot. DATED this 19th day of April, 2010. 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-

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?