Pardee v. Kinney

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying without prejudice to reassertion to the Petitioner's 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT PARDEE,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL KINNEY, Director,
)
Neb. Dept. C.S.,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

8:14CV185

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion
for appointment of counsel (Filing No. 22).

“There 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 that there is no need for the appointment of counsel at
this time.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment

of counsel (Filing No. 22) is denied without prejudice to
reassertion.
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2014.
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-