OBADO v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al

Filing 8

OPINION. Signed by Judge Brian R. Martinotti on 5/10/2017. (seb)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DENNIS OBADO,

Civil Action No. 17-1943-BRM

Petitioner,
v.

OPINION

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al.,
Respondents.

MARTINOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE
Before this Court is the Motion of Petitioner Dennis Obado (“Petitioner”) seeking the
appointment of counsel and permission to communicate with the Court via e-mail in this closed
habeas corpus matter. (ECF No. 7.) Because this Court has already dismissed Petitioner’s habeas
petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction (see Opinion and Order, ECF Nos. 5, 6), and for
the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
On or about March 21, 2017, Petitioner filed a purported habeas petition in which he sought

to have the Court intervene in an apparently ongoing investigation of him being conducted by the
Government to prevent Petitioner from being taken into custody. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner thereafter
filed an amended petition seeking the same relief on or about April 7, 2017. (ECF No. 2.) On April
27, 2017, this Court entered an Order and Opinion dismissing Petitioner’s amended habeas petition
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction as Petitioner was not “in custody” at the time he filed his
petition. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.)

1

Following the dismissal of his habeas petition, Petitioner made several attempts to contact
this Court by phone and e-mail to request various forms of relief. On May 4, 2017, Petitioner was
instructed via e-mail that, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(4) and 7.1, he was required to file any
and all requests for relief on the docket of this mater by filing paper documents with the Clerk of
the Court, and that any further requests for relief should be filed with the Clerk. Following that email, Petitioner filed this motion wherein he requests appointment of counsel and permission to
communicate with the Court via e-mail. (ECF No. 7.) In support of these requests, Petitioner states
only that he is indigent and should be provided with a “fair adversarial process” in the litigation of
his habeas petition.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A petitioner in a habeas corpus proceedings has neither a statutory nor constitutional right

to the appointment of counsel. Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991), superseded
on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see also McDonald v. State of New Jersey Att’y
Gen., No. 16-2246, 2016 WL 6208259, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2016); Shelton v. Hollingsworth,
Civ. A. No. 15-1249, 2015 WL 2400780 at *3 (D.N.J. May 18, 2015). A district court may,
however, appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) where the
petitioner shows that he is indigent and the court “determines that the interests of justice so
require.” In determining whether the interests of justice so require, the district court “must first
decide if petition has presented a nonfrivolous claim and if the appointment of counsel will benefit
the petitioner and the court.” Reese, 946 F.2d at 263-64. This determination generally requires the
Court to consider the complexity of the factual and legal issues in the petitioner’s case, as well as
the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his claims. Id.; see also McDonald, 2016 WL
6208259 at *3; Shelton, 2015 WL 2400780 at *3.

2

III.

DECISION
Petitioner requests the Court appoint counsel in this habeas corpus matter on the basis of

his indigence. While this Court accepts Petitioner’s assertion of indigence insomuch as Petitioner
has previously been granted in forma pauperis status, the appointment of counsel is not warranted
in this matter because this Court has already dismissed Petitioner’s habeas petition for lack of
jurisdiction. (See ECF Nos. 5, 6). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s habeas
petition, Petitioner has not presented a potentially meritorious claim for relief to the Court.
Therefore, the interests of justice would not be served though the appointment of counsel at this
time. Reese, 946 F.2d at 263-64; McDonald, 2016 WL 6208259 at *3. Petitioner’s motion for the
appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.
Petitioner also requests that this Court permit him to communicate with the Court via email. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2, parties are normally required to file documents with the
Court electronically via ECF. Pro se litigants, however, are instead required to file documents by
submitting paper filings to the Clerk’s Office. L.Civ.R. 5.2(4). Local Civil Rule 7.1 likewise
requires civil litigants to file all motions and similar requests for relief in accordance with Local
Rule 5.2, including the requirement that pro se litigants file motions by filing paper documents
with the Clerk of the Court. As such, the rules provide for only two methods for filing motions and
requests for relief with the court – electronically via the ECF system, or through paper filing in the
case of pro se litigants. E-mail filing of court documents, motions, and other requests for relief are
not permitted under the rules. As such, Petitioner’s request for permission to communicate with
the Court through e-mail is denied. Any future motions or requests for relief Petitioner wishes to
present to the Court must therefore be filed with the Clerk of the Court through paper filing.

3

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel and

permission to communicate with the Court vial e-mail is DENIED. An appropriate order will
follow.

Date: May 10, 2017

/s/Brian R. Martinotti_________________
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4