Oppong-Peprah v. Holder et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (filing no. 6 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KWADWO OPPONG-PEPRAH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, et al.
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV383

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel.
(Filing No. 6.) “[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.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
(filing no. 6) is denied.

DATED this 21st day of December, 2011.
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.
2