Balvin v. Britten

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (filing no. 2 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SONNY D. BALVIN,
Petitioner,
v.
FRED BRITTEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV377

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Filing No.
2.) “[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. 2) is denied.
DATED this 5th day of December, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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.