Floyd v. Houston

Filing 40

ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Copies (filing no. 38 ), and Petitioner's Motion to Compel, which the court liberally construes as another Motion for Copies (filing no. 37 ), are denied. The clerk's office is directed to send Petitioner a copy of the docket sheet in this case. Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (filing no. 34 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM C. FLOYD JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL L. KENNEY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV195

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Copies (filing no. 38),
and Petitioner’s Motion to Compel, which the court liberally construes as another
Motion for Copies (filing no. 37). Petitioner does not have the right to receive copies
of documents without payment, even if the court granted him leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Haymes v. Smith, 73 F.R.D. 572, 574
(W.D.N.Y. 1976) (“The generally recognized rule is that a court may not authorize
the commitment of federal funds to underwrite the necessary expenditures of an
indigent civil litigant’s action.”) (citing Tyler v. Lark, 472 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1973),
other citations omitted). If Petitioner requires copies of court documents, he should
contact the clerk’s office to determine the proper method for requesting and paying
for copies.
Petitioner also seems to be concerned that the state court records filed on
February 24, 2014, are not sufficient. (See Filing No. 38.) However, Petitioner
received a copy of those records. (See Filing No. 31 at CM/ECF p. 2.) If he believes
that the records before the court are insufficient, he may file a motion requesting
additional documents. However, such motion shall set forth the documents requested
and the reasons the documents are relevant to the cognizable claims. Petitioner
should be mindful to inspect his copy of the records currently filed with the court
before making such a motion.

Also pending is Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Filing No. 34.)
“[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, the court finds that there is no need for the
appointment of counsel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Petitioner’s Motion for Copies (filing no. 38), and Petitioner’s Motion
to Compel, which the court liberally construes as another Motion for Copies (filing
no. 37), are denied. The clerk’s office is directed to send Petitioner a copy of the
docket sheet in this case.
2.

Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (filing no. 34) is denied.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2014.
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.

2