Collins v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution

Filing 27

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying petitioner's Motion for appointment of counsel (Related Doc # 26 ).Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

LORENZO COLLINS,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, Madison Correctional Inst.,
Respondent .

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:12 CV 1925
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion for Court to Appointment the Federal Public Defendant ro
Represent Petitioner because the Federal Public Defender Has Stated That He Would Be Pleased
to Accept Appointment in This Case. (Doc #: 26.) For the following reason, the Motion is
DENIED.
I.
There is no constitutional right to counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding brought by a
state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Gorrasi v. Warden, Pickaway Correctional Inst., No.
1:12 CV 65, 2012 WL 4342624 at *1 2012) (citing Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir.
2002). The Court may appoint counsel for any financially eligible person seeking relief under§
2254 if the interests of justice so require. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). The decision to appoint
counsel is within the discretion of the court. Gorrasi, 2012 WL 4342624 at *1 (citing Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 638 (6th Cir. 1986). Factors to be considered include the complexity of
the factual and legal issues in the case, as well as the petitioner’s ability to investigate facts and

present claims. Id. (citing Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 264 (3d Cir. 1991). Circuit courts
have found no abuse of a district court’s discretion when failing to appoint counsel where no
evidentiary hearing was required or the issues were “straightforward and capable of resolution
on the record.” Id. (quoting Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1990) and
citing Ferguson v. Jones, 905 F.2d 211, 214 (8th Cir. 1990) and Reese, 946 F.2d at 264.).
II.
Having reviewed the pending motion, the Federal Public Defender’s attached letter, and
the record, the Court finds that the issues to be decided are simple, straightforward, and capable
of resolution on the record. It appears that two of the five grounds for relief have been
procedurally defaulted; one ground was unaccompanied by a contemporaneous objection; and
only the remaining two grounds require substantive review. The Court is confident that
appointment of the Federal Public Defender is unnecessary and a waste of its resources as no
complex issues have been presented and no evidentiary hearing is required.
Accordingly, the pending Motion is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Dan A. Polster November 18, 2013
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge