Red Kettle v. Scott Frakes

Filing 90

ORDER that petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 89 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BYRON K. RED KETTLE,
Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES, Director,
Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV171

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s Motion
to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 89).

“[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.
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel (Filing No. 89) is denied without prejudice to
reassertion.
DATED this 16th day of December, 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-