Morgan v. Houston

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JOHNNY FRED MORGAN JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT HOUSTON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV232

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of New
Counsel. (Filing No. 14.) “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
New Counsel (filing no. 14) is denied.
DATED this 6th day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf

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.
2